Islam and Islamists

Double wank and shit chips
jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#61

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:15 pm

I suppose that you think that if people knew what you think you know, they would agree with your proposal to ban Islam, keep Muslims from entering the country, and deport some or all Muslims. Are there any other reasons you think people need to know whatever you're trying to say about Islam and Muslims?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#62

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:48 pm

Steersman, I started reading through this thread, and stopped halfway through, because it started to look to me like you're trolling, and I don't want to waste my time being trolled.

Can we skip ahead and pretend that I agree with everything you're saying about Islam and/or Muslims? What about it? Can you give me some examples of what I might do about it? What are you doing about it?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#63

Post by Steersman » Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:17 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I started reading through this thread, and stopped halfway through, because it started to look to me like you're trolling, and I don't want to waste my time being trolled.
Not trolling. Forewarned is forearmed. The pen is mightier than the sword. And all that. But you might find some better or more detailed answers - if you're prepared to listen which is very much a debatable question in itself - in this recent post from Charlie Hebdo; a salient quote or two:
Charlie Hebdo wrote:In reality, the attacks [in Brussels] are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. ....

The first task of the guilty is to blame the innocent. It's an almost perfect inversion of culpability. From the bakery that forbids you to eat what you like, to the woman who forbids you to admit that you are troubled by her veil, we are submerged in guilt for permitting ourselves such thoughts. And that is where and when fear has started its sapping, undermining work. And the way is marked for all that will follow.
jimhabegger wrote:Can we skip ahead and pretend that I agree with everything you're saying about Islam and/or Muslims? What about it? Can you give me some examples of what I might do about it? What are you doing about it?
All of that is, more or less, the most sensible thing you've said on the issue that I've seen; the rest has just been blathering and sticking your head in the sand.

But to take a stab at providing something in the way of answers, what I've been doing is adding my voice to those clamouring for changes in the way our politicians and "fifth estate" deal with Islam. You may wish to check out the Twitter hashtag #StopIslam for details on the many trying to do likewise. It is maybe, little more than pissing against the wind, but I think it is, at least potentially, a way of building consensus, a common effort to change if not overturn the status quo. And, on the home front - so to speak, this thread and related comments elsewhere are my attempt to "raise the alarums", to battle for the hearts and minds.

But if you're serious about wanting to do something similar yourself - decidedly moot - then I would suggest you try to rectify your rather profound ignorance on the question of Islam - you might try Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim, and Irshad Manji's The Trouble with Islam Today for starters as they both give rather stark and damning descriptions of the problems entailed by Islam.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#64

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:15 am

Steersman, I don't see any possibility that I would ever agree with banning Islam, keeping Muslims from coming into the country, or deporting Muslims, but I still want to try to better understand your way of thinking. I'll tell you what I see you saying. Please correct me if you see any misunderstandings, or if I'm missing something.

As I understand it, you're advocating that the government ban Islam, keep Muslims from coming into the country, and deport some or all of the Muslims that are already here, for the purpose of preventing a lot of violence and other grief, that will happen if we don't.

As I understand it, roughly speaking, your view is that the more Islam and Muslims there are in the country, the more violence there will be. Some of your reasons for thinking that are:
- Some outrageous practices that are popular in some Muslim countries.
- Some outrageous things that some people have been doing, saying that they were doing it for Islam.

To people who say that the reasons for the popularity of those practices in those countries, and the reasons for people doing those outrageous things, are not because of Islam, and not because they're Muslims; you're saying that those outrageous practices and actions are prescribed in Muslim scriptures, and it's unreasonable to think that those prescriptions are not part of the reasons for people doing those things. It's also unreasonable to think that those scriptures will not continue to influence people to do those things, wherever there are people who revere them.

Am I understanding you correctly? Am I missing anything?

----

I'm wondering what you mean by "ban Islam." I just did some research on the Web to find out if anyone else is promoting that, and what they mean by it, and all the results that came up looked like parodies to me, or maybe trolls, or both. Some of them gave me a clue though, of what you might possibly mean by "ban Islam." According to some of the parodies or trolls, in 2013, Angola banned Islam. According to those reports, what was meant by "banned Islam," was that an application for registration of Islam with the government was denied, because there weren't enough Muslims in the country for it to qualify.

I also read that in China, sometimes when there is a Muslim uprising, the government temporarily prohibits fasting in the area of the uprising, and some people have called that a ban on Islam.

Are you advocating a system of registration for religions like the one in Angola, and not allowing Islam to be registered? If so, what benefits and advantages would be granted to registered religions, and not to others? Or are you advocating a temporary local prohibition on fasting, when there's a Muslim uprising?

If you aren't advocating one or the other of those, then what precisely do you mean by "ban Islam?"

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#65

Post by Steersman » Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:53 pm

jimhabegger wrote:.....

As I understand it, you're advocating that the government ban Islam, keep Muslims from coming into the country, and deport some or all of the Muslims that are already here, for the purpose of preventing a lot of violence and other grief, that will happen if we don't. ....

Am I understanding you correctly? Am I missing anything?
More or less; not that I can see offhand.
jimhabegger wrote:I'm wondering what you mean by "ban Islam." ....

Are you advocating a system of registration for religions like the one in Angola, and not allowing Islam to be registered? If so, what benefits and advantages would be granted to registered religions, and not to others? Or are you advocating a temporary local prohibition on fasting, when there's a Muslim uprising?

If you aren't advocating one or the other of those, then what precisely do you mean by "ban Islam?"
Good question as to what the scope of "ban Islam" might be. But that was sort of the point in that Gates of Vienna post, that the discussion must be allowed:
The third point in the battle against terrorism is the most problematic: The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe. With all due respect for the freedom of religion and the many peaceful, sympathetic adherents of Islam here in Austria. The lines between peaceful Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam are becoming increasingly more blurred. In our municipal kindergartens. In many mosques. Terror is encouraged, preached and prepared there. This cannot go on.
Indeed: "this" simply "cannot go on".

But more specifically, while I haven't found a lot of detail on what was entailed by the ban in Angola, the YouTube news clip states that "all mosques will be destroyed" which seems like a damn fine start; further courses of action to depend on Muslim responses thereto:
[youtube]wO9m6OstwNo[/youtube]

If "moderate" Muslims [ha!] aren't out protesting egregious travesties of justice like promoting child marriage, killing people for being gay or apostates, or threats and intimidation directed at everyone from Rushdie to reformers to human rights lawyers then I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone bleating about freedom of religion - it's not an absolute for one thing - and the like. As Nick Cohen put it recently: Shame on the liberals who rationalise terror.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#66

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:28 pm

Steersman, as I'm understanding it now, your theory is that less Islam and fewer Muslims will mean less violence and other grief. That's based on some media reports, and possibly some opinion polls, about the popularity of some outrageous practices in Muslim countries; on some outrageous things that some people have been doing, saying that they were doing it for Islam; and on some outrageous prescriptions in Muslim scriptures.

One of the ways you're proposing to reduce the amount of Islam is to "ban" it, without any clear idea of what that even means. I'll take "ban" to mean some as yet unspecified measures to reduce the amount of Islam in the country, for example by closing Mosques and prohibiting fasting.

It seems plausible to me that fewer Muslims would mean less violence against Muslims, but I'm presuming that that isn't the violence you're talking about. I'm presuming that you're talking about violence committed by Muslims. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. Are you thinking that there is, and always will be, more violence committed by Muslims than by other people, everywhere in the world, under all circumstances?

Also the fact that what you're proposing is aimed at all Muslims indiscriminately, suggests to me that you don't see any possible way to predict which Muslims are more likely to commit violence, or else you think that *all* Muslims are more likely to commit violence than other people are. Is it for one of those reasons, or some other, that your proposal is aimed at *all* Muslims, rather than just the ones who are more likely to do violence?

I'm curious about your theory of *why* the behavior of *all* Muslims is either more violent or more unpredictable than the behavior of any other people in the world. I think that's relevant to the kinds of measures that would be most effective in reducing violence committed by Muslims. I see two possibilities:
1. Muslim scriptures influence people towards violence, more than any other writings that are popular among any other group or category of people, even more than political fundraising propaganda.
2. Only the most violent people in the world can possibly have any reason to call themselves Muslims.
Do you have any other theory about why the behavior of all Muslims everywhere is either more violent or more unpredictable than the behavior of other people, and always will be, under all circumstances?

Incidentally, I don't call myself a Muslim, but I think I could reasonably say that I am one. I endorse the Muslim declaration of faith, which is that there is only one God, and that Muhammad was one of His prophets. Also, I see my faith as submission to God, which is one of the most common definitions of Islam. If I'm understanding you correctly, that's all you need to know, to know that either I'm more inclined to violence than other people, or else my behavior is so unpredictable that it's safer to assume that I am. Is that right?

If you think that Muslim scriptures influence people towards violence more than away from it, that seems curious to me. There are more passages in the Quran prohibiting violence, than promoting it. Why would you suppose that the ones promoting violence would have more influence than the ones prohibiting it?

I have another question, about whether you think we would have nothing to lose by deporting all of our Muslims. I won't go into that now, but I'm putting it here to remind myself.

----

Going back to your proposal to pass laws reducing the amount of Islam, it seems to me that the specifics would depend on why the behavior of Muslims is more violent and/or more unpredictable than the behavior of other people. For example, if it's because of the curious fact that the passages in Muslim scriptures promoting harmful behavior have more influence on people's behavior than the more numerous passages promoting benevolent and beneficial behavior, then it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to destroy all the Muslim scriptures in the country, including all private collections and the ones in all the libraries, and block access to all the Web sites in the world that display Muslim scriptures or offer them for downloading. Not only Muslim scriptures, but all books, articles and videos quoting them, including criticisms of Islam. We might also need to prohibit anyone writing or reciting Muslim scriptures from memory, and to deport anyone who has any memory of any Muslim scriptures. I don't see how anything less than that could stop Muslim scriptures from influencing people towards violence. Would you agree with that?

Also, if we're going to deport people, we would need to deport not only Muslims, but all people who see any good in Muslim scriptures. Would you agree with that?

That reminds me of another question, that I've asked twice without getting any answer, and that I think would help me understand your way of thinking. Can you give me some examples of things you would not agree for the government to do, even if you believed that it would reduce or prevent a lot of violence and other grief?

Another question that might help me understand your way of thinking is about mass shootings. This is hypothetical, because it's based on dubious premises, but I still think your answer might help me better understand your way of thinking.

Suppose that we could reduce and prevent some mass shootings by deporting all white men. Would you agree to that? If not, why not? Or even if you would agree to it, is there anything you would regret about the necessity of doing that? Obviously that might reduce our military capacities, but are there any other reasons?

----

I have another question, about not allowing Muslims into the country, and deporting some or all of the ones that are already here. It seems to me that that would have to include all people who have ever been Muslims, because otherwise the ones who would be most likely to commit violence might pretend to renounce Islam, to gain entrance into the country or avoid being deported. Would you agree with that?

Of course that would still leave some Muslims who have never admitted to being Muslims, but there might not be many of those, and I'm not sure how we would detect them. Do you have any ideas about that?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#67

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:10 pm

Steersman, I just read that "Gates of Vienna" post, and it reminded me about some alarms that I've seen people raising, that Muslims are trying to take over the world, and intend to impose the most g**-awful possible interpretations of Islamic law on all people everywhere, by any means fair or foul; or at least that most Muslims everywhere would approve of that.

Is that one of your concerns, too?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#68

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 8:16 pm

Steersman, I just looked more carefully at that "Gates of Vienna" post, and according to that same article, the author who is quoted as saying "The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe," says himself that what he is proposing is not actually a ban on Islam per se. :? :think: What he's proposing are some restrictions on Islamic practices, or more specifically some practices of Islamic institutions, especially institutions that can be used for indoctrination. The US already has some restrictions on the practices of some religions and their institutions. I don't see what's so radical about that, or what reasonable and responsible objections anyone could have to discussing it.

Even if the discussion really is about banning Islam, whatever that might mean to anyone,I think it's wrong to try to repress discussions about that, or about any other topic. I think it's wrong to try to repress discussions about any topic whatsoever, including how much truth there is in holocaust stories.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#69

Post by Steersman » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:13 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I just looked more carefully at that "Gates of Vienna" post, and according to that same article, the author who is quoted as saying "The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe," says himself that what he is proposing is not actually a ban on Islam per se. :? :think: ....
Fine. That's what he is proposing - doesn't mean that the discussion has to be restricted to just that possibility, that others shouldn't be on the table as well. Like the banning and demolishing of mosques that supposedly took place in Angola, and the deportations that did take place in Greece in 1923, and in India in 1947.
jimhabegger wrote:Even if the discussion really is about banning Islam, whatever that might mean to anyone,I think it's wrong to try to repress discussions about that, or about any other topic. I think it's wrong to try to repress discussions about any topic whatsoever, including how much truth there is in holocaust stories.
Agreed. Reminds me of this video which raises a few questions at least about the provenance of the 6 million figure: SIX MILLION JEWS 1915-1938 HD; "Coincidence or the nefarious Jewish Conspiracy in action? (only The Shadow knows for sure)":

[youtube]Dda-0Q_XUhk[/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#70

Post by Steersman » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:32 pm

jimhabegger wrote: ....
Do you have any other theory about why the behavior of all Muslims everywhere is either more violent or more unpredictable than the behavior of other people, and always will be, under all circumstances? ....
I wonder how much more spoon-feeding you expect from me. I've more or less provided chapter and verse that supports that contention in one way or another. For instance, this from post #47 in this thread:
And then there's this from another ex-Muslim (apparently), a Syrian-American woman (one assumes ...) doctor, Wafa Sultan, who had this to say (apparently) in another blog (4):
Sultan wrote:I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.
Which is also apparently found here in a YouTube video - not surprisingly titled "Islam & Mental Illness".
While I'll concede that you show some ability and willingness to read what I've presented, I don't think you're very attentive or thorough - maybe some bias, some "pre-judgment" (aka prejudice) showing? I would suggest you may wish to try again, particularly that #47 as it has a bunch of itemized links that you should try to follow and actually understand rather than just read.
jimhabegger wrote:Of course that would still leave some Muslims who have never admitted to being Muslims, but there might not be many of those, and I'm not sure how we would detect them. Do you have any ideas about that?
Well, we could always bring back the Inquistion which was, in part at least, created to deal with the deportation of Jews from Spain in about 1500:

[youtube]Nf_Y4MbUCLY[/youtube]

... (just kidding around ....)

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#71

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:57 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote: ....
Do you have any other theory about why the behavior of all Muslims everywhere is either more violent or more unpredictable than the behavior of other people, and always will be, under all circumstances? ....
I wonder how much more spoon-feeding you expect from me. I've more or less provided chapter and verse that supports that contention in one way or another.
That wasn't my question. My question was not what evidence you see for thinking that Muslims are more violent than other people. My question was, do you do see any other possible explanations for that, in addition to the influence of Muslim scriptures? For example do you think that only the most violent people could possibly have any reason to call themselves Muslims? Besides the influence of Muslim scriptures, do you see any other possible explanations for how it happens that Muslims are more violent than other people?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#72

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:01 pm

I'm asking that question, because if there are any other reasons for Muslims being more violent than other people, besides the influence of Islamic scriptures, that might need to be considered, to find the best ways to stop their violence.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#73

Post by Steersman » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:34 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote: ....
Do you have any other theory about why the behavior of all Muslims everywhere is either more violent or more unpredictable than the behavior of other people, and always will be, under all circumstances? ....
I wonder how much more spoon-feeding you expect from me. I've more or less provided chapter and verse that supports that contention in one way or another.
That wasn't my question. My question was not what evidence you see for thinking that Muslims are more violent than other people. My question was, do you do see any other possible explanations for that ....
Fair enough; mea culpa. But I think you're trying to peddle a strawman, to throw a boatload of red herrings on the field with your "other possible explanations". If "Muslim scriptures" are likely to be the largest and most dominant factor - as the evidence strongly suggests, evidence that you clearly haven't been willing to address - then it looks rather disingenuous at best to be trying to lay much in the way of blame on factors that are likely to be just as common in populations that don't show the same levels of violence.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#74

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:54 pm

Steersman, there are some questions that I've asked repeatedly, and that you keep ignoring, that I need answered, to help me understand your way of thinking.

1. If we could reduce and prevent violence by deporting white men, would you agree to that? If not, why not?

2. Is there anything you would not agree for the government to do, even if you believed that it would reduce and prevent violence? For example, is there any limit to the invasion of your privacy that you would accept, if you believed that it would help reduce and prevent violence? Is there any limit to the restrictions on your freedom that you would accept, if you thought it would help reduce and prevent violence?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#75

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:58 pm

Steersman wrote:... evidence that you clearly haven't been willing to address ...
- and don't intend to. I'm not trying to argue with you about anything. I'm trying to follow your thinking as far as I can, to see where it leads.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#76

Post by Steersman » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:16 am

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, there are some questions that I've asked repeatedly, and that you keep ignoring, that I need answered, to help me understand your way of thinking.
Because I don't think they're relevant, and think that you're wasting my time by bringing them up repeatedly - if not by trolling for Jesus or Allah or whoever the fuck you believe in. The only question I think of much import, at least in these circumstances, is why Islam is so barbaric and archaic and antithetical to the principles of democracy and of humanitarianism, and what can be done about it.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#77

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:40 am

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, there are some questions that I've asked repeatedly, and that you keep ignoring, that I need answered, to help me understand your way of thinking.
Because I don't think they're relevant
Okay, that might actually answer those questions for me. Still, I'd like to have another go at it, from a different angle. Imagine that people from some country, let's say France or Germany for example, are more violent than other people, so that we could reduce and prevent violence by deporting all the people from that country. If that were true, can you think of any good reason for *not* doing that?

After I said that I'm not trying to argue, it occurred to me that you might be interested in what I think about all this. Are you?
The only question I think of much import, at least in these circumstances, is why Islam is so barbaric and archaic and antithetical to the principles of democracy and of humanitarianism, and what can be done about it.
That's easy. The reason that what you call "Islam" is so barbaric and archaic and antithetical to the principles of democracy and of humanitarianism, is because that's part of your definition of Islam. It's a tautology.

I'll summarize again my understanding of what you're saying: Muslims are more violent and cruel than other people, and always will be, everywhere and under all circumstances, because of the influence of Muslim scriptures. To reduce and prevent violence, we need to ban Islam, keep Muslims from coming into the country, and deport the ones who are already here. Everything else you've said or linked to was to illustrate and substantiate that view. If I've misunderstood or missed anything, please let me know.

If I understand what you mean by "Islam," even though I wouldn't agree with banning it, I would agree that the world would be better off without it. The reason I wouldn't agree with banning it is because I don't think that would work, and even if it did, I think there are better and less harmful ways to eliminate it. I might also be opposed to banning it, on principle, depending on what is meant by "ban."

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#78

Post by Steersman » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:17 am

jimhabegger wrote: ...
After I said that I'm not trying to argue, it occurred to me that you might be interested in what I think about all this. Are you?
Nope
jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:The only question I think of much import, at least in these circumstances, is why Islam is so barbaric and archaic and antithetical to the principles of democracy and of humanitarianism, and what can be done about it.
That's easy. The reason that what you call "Islam" is so barbaric and archaic and antithetical to the principles of democracy and of humanitarianism, is because that's part of your definition of Islam. It's a tautology.
Unmitigated horse shit. The plague of global terrorism:
THE appalling attacks in Paris on November 13th are a brutal reminder of the danger of terrorism to the West, mainly from Jihadist groups such as Islamic State (IS). Yet terrorism is a threat everywhere. The day before the atrocities in Paris, two bomb blasts killed 37 people in Beirut. On November 17th a suicide bomber blew up a market in northern Nigeria, leaving at least 36 people dead. Last year 32,700 people were killed in attacks worldwide, nearly twice as many as in 2013. And this year the toll may turn out to be even higher. ....
jimhabegger wrote:I'll summarize again my understanding of what you're saying: Muslims are more violent and cruel than other people, and always will be, everywhere and under all circumstances, because of the influence of Muslim scriptures.
Nice strawman - must have taken the remains of all of the wheat fields of Nebraska to make it. I'm not saying that all Muslims "are more violent and cruel than other people" - just more of them. Because of an excessive literalism. As I've indicated in my quotes from the Pew Forum survey, and other sources.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#79

Post by jimhabegger » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:18 am

Sorry. Ironically, my problem might be reading you too literally.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#80

Post by Steersman » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:26 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Sorry. Ironically, my problem might be reading you too literally.
I rather doubt that. More likely that you're wearing rose-coloured glasses or blinders - I expect it goes with the territory of your "religion".

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#81

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:10 pm

Steersman, I started thinking it would be okay for me to respond in the Undead thread to what you're saying there about Islam and Muslims, but I've changed my mind again. All of my responses to what you're saying about Islam and Muslims, anywhere in the Slyme Pit, will be in this thread.
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:... if you really do think that reading the Quran literalistically, believing that it's infallible, makes people more violent ...
I've already quoted at least one person - the Glasgow murderer that Anjuli quoted - who clearly was made more violent because of "reading the Quran literalistically". And there are obviously many others - the atheists in Bangladesh who where hacked to death for examples. You seem to think that just because it doesn't cause all Muslims to go out and kill someone - right now - that the religion is somehow off the hook.
Taking another look at that, I see some more things that I want to address.

I think that what people read can influence their behavior, and that reading the Quran might make some people more violent. I think that would partly depend on how they interpret it, which for most people would largely depend on popular thinking in whatever social circles they're trying to be part of. Another factor would be the quality of their childhood training, which could have occurred outside of those social circles.

I do not think that Islam, or any other religion including the Baha'i Faith, is off the hook. I see them all doing a lot of harm.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#82

Post by Steersman » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:28 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I started thinking it would be okay for me to respond in the Undead thread to what you're saying there about Islam and Muslims, but I've changed my mind again. All of my responses to what you're saying about Islam and Muslims, anywhere in the Slyme Pit, will be in this thread.
Might be a good idea for a number of reasons.
jimhabegger wrote:I do not think that Islam, or any other religion including the Baha'i Faith, is off the hook. I see them all doing a lot of harm.
Well, that seems a good start, although one might then wonder why you're more or less peddling Baha'i. But I also wonder whether you've ever given any thought to why that might be. While I expect that the answer is rather complicated, I kind of think that this passage from Huxley is a large part of it:
The truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made it and those who have accepted it; and its most baneful shape is book infallibility. For sacerdotal corporations and schools of philosophy are able, under due compulsion of opinion, to retreat from positions that have become untenable; while the dead hand of a book sets and stiffens, amidst texts and formulæ, until it becomes a mere petrifaction, fit only for that function of stumbling block, which it so admirably performs.

Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it. It lies at the root of the deep-seated, sometimes disguised, but never absent, antagonism of all the varieties of ecclesiasticism to the freedom of thought and to the [x] spirit of scientific investigation. For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols. Of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, it is needful to iterate with more than Catonic pertinacity, Delenda est.
When people start insisting that their own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town then hell on wheels is the inevitable result. You might consider your own contributions to the latter.

And relative to which, you might also consider these rather sensible observations from the Dalai Lama (quoted in a post by the anthropologist John Hartung):
And according to the New York Times, when thousands of the world's clerical leaders gathered at the second World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago one hundred years after the first such gathering in 1893, "Evangelical and fundamentalist Christian churches that are embraced by many Americans shunned the gathering on theological grounds, and the established centrist and liberal denominations, like the Episcopalians and Methodists that have usually supported interfaith talks, were scarcely visible."

Eastern Orthodox Christians came but left en masse when they found themselves in the company of "neopagans," and Jewish groups withdrew when the Nation of Islam showed up. Sikhs and Hindus stayed but tried to push each other out of the convention center (physically), and the Dalai Lama astutely concluded "Nonsense!" in response to his own question: "If we have conflicts in the name of religion, can we help resolve other problems?" (Steinfels, 1993, p. 93).
Indeed. More a part of the problem than of the solution.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#83

Post by jimhabegger » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:22 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:I do not think that Islam, or any other religion including the Baha'i Faith, is off the hook. I see them all doing a lot of harm.
... I also wonder whether you've ever given any thought to why that might be. While I expect that the answer is rather complicated, I kind of think that this passage from Huxley is a large part of it:
The truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief ...

Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it. ...
When people start insisting that their own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town then hell on wheels is the inevitable result. You might consider your own contributions to the latter.

And relative to which, you might also consider these rather sensible observations from the Dalai Lama (quoted in a post by the anthropologist John Hartung):
... when thousands of the world's clerical leaders gathered at the second World Parliament of Religions ... the Dalai Lama astutely concluded "Nonsense!" in response to his own question: "If we have conflicts in the name of religion, can we help resolve other problems?"
Indeed. More a part of the problem than of the solution.
I agree that bibliolatry, claims to infallibility, and all those evils often go hand in hand, but if you see that correlation as proof of some simple cause-and-effect relationship between them, I disagree.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#84

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:34 am

Steersman wrote:When people start insisting that their own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town then hell on wheels is the inevitable result. You might consider your own contributions to the latter.
If you ever see me insisting that my own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town, I'll be grateful if you'll give me a good scolding.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#85

Post by Steersman » Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:18 am

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:When people start insisting that their own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town then hell on wheels is the inevitable result. You might consider your own contributions to the latter.
If you ever see me insisting that my own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town, I'll be grateful if you'll give me a good scolding.
Ok. But now that you mention it, you did say something that is virtually tantamount to doing precisely that:
jimhabegger wrote:- Do I believe that religious laws should be the law of the land?
I think that the laws prescribed by my God should some day be, and will some day be, the law of the land.
Rather strongly suggests that you think some "God" has prescribed some set of laws - that "he" has revealed only to a select few ("the only game in town") which, mirabile dictu, just happens to include you - and which you think should become the "law of the land". And which you clearly continue to peddle as if it were fact and not a rather problematic delusion.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#86

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:16 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:If you ever see me insisting that my own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town, I'll be grateful if you'll give me a good scolding.
Ok. But now that you mention it, you did say something that is virtually tantamount to doing precisely that:
jimhabegger wrote:- Do I believe that religious laws should be the law of the land?
I think that the laws prescribed by my God should some day be, and will some day be, the law of the land.
Rather strongly suggests that you think some "God" has prescribed some set of laws - that "he" has revealed only to a select few ("the only game in town") which, mirabile dictu, just happens to include you - and which you think should become the "law of the land". And which you clearly continue to peddle as if it were fact and not a rather problematic delusion.
Thank you. I'll see if I can find some way to clean that up.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#87

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:42 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:If you ever see me insisting that my own personal conception of "God Himself" is the only game in town, I'll be grateful if you'll give me a good scolding.
Ok. But now that you mention it, you did say something that is virtually tantamount to doing precisely that:
jimhabegger wrote:- Do I believe that religious laws should be the law of the land?
I think that the laws prescribed by my God should some day be, and will some day be, the law of the land.
Rather strongly suggests that you think some "God" has prescribed some set of laws - that "he" has revealed only to a select few ("the only game in town") which, mirabile dictu, just happens to include you - and which you think should become the "law of the land". And which you clearly continue to peddle as if it were fact and not a rather problematic delusion.
How about this:

Of course I could be wrong, and I might be singing a different tune tomorrow, but for now it looks to me like the laws prescribed by my God should some day be, and will some day be, part of the law of the land.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#88

Post by jimhabegger » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:52 pm

Steersman wrote:Rather strongly suggests that you think some "God" has prescribed some set of laws - that "he" has revealed only to a select few.
Not only to a select few. To all people. They're widely available, online and offline.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#89

Post by jimhabegger » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:33 am

Steersman, I'm beginning to suspect that you're just kidding around with us, and that you aren't really as unprincipled as you're pretending to be.

About the influence of the Quran. I think that any writings, including the scriptures of Islam and other religions, can influence people towards violence. I think that the Quran and other scriptures can influence people towards violence, or away from it, depending on why and how they're reading it, and I think that depends mostly on their training and social environment. Which means that I might approve of regulating religious educational and social institutions, but only if the same rules would be applied to all allegiance networks, no matter if they're religious or not.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#90

Post by jimhabegger » Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:13 pm

Steersman, I'm honestly not sure how serious you are in what you've been saying about the influence of the Quran, and what you think should be done about it. I'm going to try treating it all seriously, and if it's all just a joke to you, you're welcome to it.

As I understand it, you think that reading the Quran influences people towards violence when they believe in interpreting it literally, so much that reading the Quran that way needs to be legally repressed. You keep saying that we need to "ban Islam," but you don't seem to have any clear idea of what you mean by that, other than possibly closing the mosques. I don't understand how you can think that "banning Islam" will keep people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran from reading it, if you don't even know what you mean by "banning Islam." Maybe what you mean by "ban Islam" is anything we can think of, to keep people who believe in a literal intepretation of the Quran from reading it? I don't even understand how you think that closing the mosques will keep people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran from reading it.

Along with that, you're proposing that we deport people who won't pretend to repudiate a literal interpretation of the Quran.

To me, all of that looks either worse than useless for your purposes, or prohibitively impractical.

I'm not sure what your purpose has been in promoting those ideas. Are you hoping to convince enough people to pressure our legislators into doing some or all of that? Or is it just to encourage open discussion about it? Or what?

Would you be interested in why I don't think that closing the mosques would keep anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Quran from reading it, why I think it would be impractical to try to deport people who won't pretend to repudiate a literal interpretation of the Quran, and/or what I think might be better ways to try to solve the problem of the Quran influencing people towards violence?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#91

Post by jimhabegger » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:41 pm

Steersman, I have another question. Is the danger from Muslims living in our countries the biggest danger for us, that you see from Muslims in the world today? Also, does it matter to you what happens to anyone else in the world besides you?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#92

Post by Steersman » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:18 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:Rather strongly suggests that you think some "God" has prescribed some set of laws - that "he" has revealed only to a select few.
Not only to a select few. To all people. They're widely available, online and offline.
What's "widely available" is merely someone's opinion on what they think that something that might be construed as "god himself" would have decided might actually qualify as some moral precepts and laws. But which any reasonably unbiased and rational individual is likely to construe as largely the ravings of a madman.

You might actually try considering that perspective. Or provide actual evidence to the contrary.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#93

Post by Steersman » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:36 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I'm beginning to suspect that you're just kidding around with us, and that you aren't really as unprincipled as you're pretending to be.
Not at all a case of "just kidding around". And while I'm not sure which position of mine you think is unprincipled, if it's related to the question of free speech and freedom of religion then you might consider that there are different types of principles, some of which override, limit, or restrict others. Apropos of the latter at least, consider this post of Jerry Coyne's: Tennessee legislature repeals religious defense for parents who hurt their children by withholding medical care. Barbarisms and psychoses from Bronze age "holy books" [ha! what a joke] are slowly losing their credibility - about time.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#94

Post by Steersman » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:56 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I'm honestly not sure how serious you are in what you've been saying about the influence of the Quran, and what you think should be done about it. I'm going to try treating it all seriously, and if it's all just a joke to you, you're welcome to it.
As above, not at all a joke, but a rather serious social problem. Unless maybe you think 9/11 and 500,000 dead (or thereabouts) in Syria, and several million Muslim refugees (more like thugs and invaders) qualify as a joke. Seems fewer and fewer people thinking Islam qualifies as such:

While that might be a little harsh of Ms. Hopkins, I notice that David Cameron is slowly beginning to read the writing on the wall:
jimhabegger wrote:.... You keep saying that we need to "ban Islam," but you don't seem to have any clear idea of what you mean by that, other than possibly closing the mosques. I don't understand how you can think that "banning Islam" will keep people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Quran from reading it, if you don't even know what you mean by "banning Islam." ....
I said before that the devil is in the details, and that they are to be worked out depending on various responses. But "banning Islam" would seem to justify closing madrasas, mosques, printing and distribution of the Quran, the banning of burkas, the termination of Sharia law provisions, declaring the Quran barbaric and odious hate speech, and declaring Muslims persona non grata as far as immigration is concerned. All of which is likely to seriously curtail the number of people believing in a "literal interpretation of Islam":
Amen to that.
jimhabegger wrote:I'm not sure what your purpose has been in promoting those ideas. Are you hoping to convince enough people to pressure our legislators into doing some or all of that? Or is it just to encourage open discussion about it? ...
Yea, something along those lines. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, pen mightier than the sword, and all that.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#95

Post by Steersman » Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:09 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I have another question. Is the danger from Muslims living in our countries the biggest danger for us, that you see from Muslims in the world today?
Some seem to think that the existential crisis of climate change is the biggest danger "lumen" over us ....
jimhabegger wrote:Also, does it matter to you what happens to anyone else in the world besides you?
Not quite sure where that comes from, particularly given all the citations and quotes I've provided in this thread and elsewhere: you think that all of the similar concerns expressed therein by a myriad of others is no more than what happens to me personally? No more than Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling? But maybe you also think that all Muslims are just poorly understood and oppressed, and that the only thing necessary to turn the large percentage who are, in effect, raving lunatics into fine upstanding citizens and upholders of Western laws and values is to open the flood gates to Muslim immigration?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#96

Post by jimhabegger » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:54 pm

Steersman, you might have missed the point of one of my questions. Do you see any danger to us, or to anyone else in the world, from Muslims living outside of Europe and North America? Because I see more danger, to us and to everyone else in the world, from Muslims living outside of Europe and North America, than from the ones living inside of them, and I haven't seen you addressing that at all.

I'm still wondering what you intend to do about the Baha'is. Baha'i communities are growing and spreading all over Europe and North America, promoting a view of Muhammad as an authentic prophet of God, and of the words of the Quran as the words of God Himself. Most of these dangerous people are indistinguishable in their appearance, dress and conduct from multitudes of the people around them. You might pass some of them on the street every day without ever suspecting their violent, treacherous and treasonous attitudes and intentions. There might even be one in the stall next to you in a public restroom sometimes, and you wouldn't have any way of knowing by looking at them.

What do you propose to do about them?

[youtube]dQPMi8xfSqg[/youtube]

[youtube]3_NjOZ4qPqk[/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#97

Post by Steersman » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:08 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, you might have missed the point of one of my questions. Do you see any danger to us, or to anyone else in the world, from Muslims living outside of Europe and North America? Because I see more danger, to us and to everyone else in the world, from Muslims living outside of Europe and North America, than from the ones living inside of them, and I haven't seen you addressing that at all.
Well, I have addressed that - many times - but you seem too narrow-minded and dogmatic to have noticed. However, one might argue that there's more danger from Muslims outside of Europe & North America than there is from those inside, although that's probably moot, simply because there are more of them there. And the best way of ensuring that that doesn't change is to ban the "religion" [what a fucking joke], and close the doors to their immigration.
jimhabegger wrote:I'm still wondering what you intend to do about the Baha'is. Baha'i communities are growing and spreading all over Europe and North America, promoting a view of Muhammad as an authentic prophet of God, and of the words of the Quran as the words of God Himself. .... What do you propose to do about them?

[.youtube]dQPMi8xfSqg[/youtube]

[.youtube]3_NjOZ4qPqk[/youtube]
Well, for starters, piss on your "God Himself", on the Quran, and on the Prophet?

While there might well be some credible or commendable concepts in with the odious chaff of the Baha'i faith - for instance, "the spiritual unity of all humankind" - one might argue that that "chaff" makes the whole "religion" [ha!] a poisoned chalice at best, and those who peddle it either criminally deluded or useful idiots. One might ask what you propose to do about that chaff? I rather doubt you're capable of doing anything about it as it's joined at the hip with your literalist viewpoint.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#98

Post by Steersman » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:18 pm

Only in the interests of collecting a few news items and tweets relevant to the topic of Islam, of course ...., a repost of my comment in the main thread, Post #19187:
Scented Nectar wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: <snip>
Steers! Steers! Steers! Oops, you were joking. Never mind. Trump! Trump! Trump!...
:-) Another one of my infamous but "feeble - yet oddly charming - gropings at humour"? ;-)
I'm not so sure about Trump, actually. Apparently he said that trans should use whatever washroom they want. Oh well, I don't agree with anyone 100%.

"Trump is ok with trans ppl using whatever bathroom they want"
[.youtube]UBEjxjO_5pU[/youtube]
Likewise not at all sure about Trump. But interesting questions, trans and bathrooms and definitions for "woman", predicated on different if not contradictory assumptions. Not sure if you play Sudoku or not but if so then you might like this illustration of how invalid premises can lead to contradictions: ;-)
Scented Nectar wrote:
Steersman wrote: But kind of an obscure and oblique reference to Trump's recent success in the New York primary, as well as being of two minds about many of his policies. While I think he's on the right track about closing the borders to Muslim immigration, it seems he's still kind of weaselly on Islam, and unclear on the concept that it is an "integrated religious, political and judicial ideology of social governance imposed by force" (as Nugent put it) - for instance as suggested by this tweet:
[.tweet][/tweet]
Maybe it's one of those fake quotes. I hope he didn't actually say that. You never know though, with politicians.
Indeed - saw a howler or two from Trudeau recently proving stupidity no respecter of borders, regardless of how high you build the walls. So to speak.

But it does seem that Trump actually did say at least one of those sentences:

Not sure whether the other ones were part of a longer text he was quoting from himself, or whether the orginal tweet was a collation, but that May tweet of his sure looks pretty damning.
Scented Nectar wrote:
Steersman wrote: Given Charlie Hebdo and the whole Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, "taunting" should be the least that Western society should be doing as far as Islam is concerned - and why it needs to be extirpated, root and fucking branch. .... And, on the same topic, a recent post in the Daily Mail on a "Hijab Day" at a Paris University:
[.tweet][/tweet]
It's right out of 1984. The ministry of truth or whatever. Wear this outfit that is forced on millions of women under penalty of being beaten by the sharia police, and do it in the cause of women's freedom to wear what they want. Makes perfect sense... if they were protesting the things. But no, they're celebrating it. Did they all eat lead as babies? The world is insane.
Indeed. Interesting to see Nasreen, Namazie, and our own ex-Muslim feminist (?), Aki Muthali, weigh in on the issue:


Scented Nectar wrote:
Steersman wrote:Hey, here's something funny. A bunch of Trump protesters being interviewed. The funniest part is the guy talking about farm workers and the price of produce, when the interviewer rewords his argument, and he realizes just what it is he was arguing for. Priceless fail! :lol:

"Donald Trump protestors “respond to his hate" with their love?"
[.youtube]neoAfy1BNy8[/youtube]
Funny, indeed: someone should give that reporter a medal or two or at least a raise; some rather incisive and pointed questions with some of those being interviewed being hoist by their own petards. As I think that tweet of Paul Watson's (?) illustrated. And then the woman at the end saying "this interview is over" because she wound up with egg on her face. And I think you were right the first time about the guy talking about the price of produce - :-)


jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#100

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 4:31 am

Steersman, here's an example of what I mean by hysteria:

Shedding Blood For Allah: Pew Study Says More Than 350 Million Muslims Support Violent Jihad
... 364 million Muslims who condone the murder of apostates, blasphemers, gay people, cartoonists, loose women, and possibly everyone godless enough to attend the Boston marathon."
Eight out of ten U.S. Muslims say it’s not cool to strap a bomb to your chest and kill a bunch of kuffar. But two out of ten say that’s dandy. There are 2.6 million Muslims living in the U.S. … x 19 percent … Yep, almost half a million of them give suicide bombers a big thumbs-up.
That’s adorable. That means that 25 percent of Indonesian Muslims are worried about non-Muslim extremists (of which there are very few in that country) to the exclusion of the violent agitators, murderers, and terrorists in their own midst. And in their way, they’d be right. They themselves will likely not be the targets of fellow Muslims. That fate will have to be borne by Indonesian Christians, Buddhists, or agnostics — or by tourists brave enough to visit a Bali nightclub.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#101

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 4:47 am

Technically, the page that I linked to is an example of histrionics. The hysteria is in people believing propaganda like that.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#102

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 4:19 pm

Steersman, I said that I would say more here about the Muslim threat, but I don't really have much to say. Only that I see a lot more worldwide destruction and bloodshed looming ahead of us, far worse than anything we've ever seen or heard of before, if the hostilities continue to escalate, and all I see you doing about it is promoting escalation.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#103

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 4:53 pm

I thought that race prejudices had been too thoroughly discredited to be used any more for promoting violence, but now I see that they can serve that purpose, in combination with appeals to prejudices across ideological divides, which have not yet been discredited as thoroughly.

Tell me this is not about race:
Bill Maher: These are liberal principles that liberals applaud for, but then when you say in the Muslim world this is what’s lacking, then they get upset.

Sam Harris: Yeah, liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They’ll criticize white theocracy ...

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#104

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 5:56 pm

jimhabegger wrote:I thought that race prejudices had been too thoroughly discredited to be used any more for promoting violence, but now I see that they can serve that purpose, in combination with appeals to prejudices across ideological divides, which have not yet been discredited as thoroughly.

Tell me this is not about race:
Bill Maher: These are liberal principles that liberals applaud for, but then when you say in the Muslim world this is what’s lacking, then they get upset.

Sam Harris: Yeah, liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They’ll criticize white theocracy ...
It is not about race. And I really don't think you have a clue what the concept is about or what it entails. And how many other people's understanding of it is equally flawed. I would suggest you read - and pay close attention to - my response to Couch [Post # 24983] in the main thread. And likewise with several of my other comments on the topic.

But just because Harris has used "white", that doesn't make his or Maher's criticisms of Muslim theocracy necessarily "racist". That you apparently think so puts you in the same camp as Aneris with her "race is racism". But for one thing, "Muslim" is not a race. And for another, the "white" is only qualifying "theocracy" to differentiate the Western, Christian brand from the (more odious and problematic) Muslim variety; it is clearly throwing stones at theocracy in general, and pointing to the hypocrisy of "liberals" condemning one while condoning the other. I would seriously suggest that you read Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim, particularly the bits about the Trahison des Clercs [Betrayal by the Intellectuals], a theme he refers and returns to throughout the entire book. A relevant quote:
Warraq wrote:This book is first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam even to blaspheme, to make errors, to satirize, and mock. Muslims and non-Muslims have the right to critically examine the sources, the history, and dogma of Islam. Muslims avail themselves of the right to criticize in their frequent denunciations of Western culture, in terms that would have been deemed racist, neocolonialist, or imperialist had a European directed them against Islam. Without criticism, Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified in its totalitarian, intolerant, paranoid past. It will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality, and truth.

Western scholars and Islamicists have totally failed in their duties as intellectuals. They have betrayed their calling by abandoning their critical faculties when it comes to Islam. Some, as I shall show, have even abandoned any attempt to achieve objectivity, to aim at objective truth. [pgs 14-15]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#105

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 6:35 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Technically, the page that I linked to is an example of histrionics. The hysteria is in people believing propaganda like that.
Technically speaking, you're just blowing smoke out of your arse, and haven't a clue about statistics or sampling - and show no willingness to learn.

One might argue that that "Moral Compass" site says "That means that 25 percent of Indonesian Muslims are worried about non-Muslim extremists ..." is a little iffy - they should have said "That means that, probably, 25 percent ..." as that is consistent with sampling theory. But it says absolutely diddly squat against the rather credible survery done by the rather credible Pew Forum that the "Moral Compass" had linked to. Which I expect you never bothered to even look at: "don't confuse me with facts..." and all that.

It is most definitely not hysteria that, as that Survey notes (pg 22):
At the country level, there are notable exceptions to the view that sharia should apply only to Muslims. These include Egypt, where 74% of Muslims say sharia should be the law of the land and nearly three-quarters of them (or 55% of all Egyptian Muslims) say Islamic law should apply to people of all faiths.
And there are a number of other equally "problematic" aspects:
By contrast, fewer Muslims back severe criminal punishments in Southeast Asia (median of 46%), Central Asia (38%), and Southern and Eastern Europe (36%). Even smaller medians in these same regions (between 13% and 27%) say apostates should face the death penalty for leaving Islam to join another religion.
Nor is it "hysteria" than more than a few Muslims are prepared to support such odious principles.

Hardly gives much justification for allowing Muslims to immigrate to Western countries - but more than a little to justify deportation, at least those unwilling to repudiate the entire religion or those problematic aspects.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#106

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 6:51 pm

Sorry, I forgot to include a link:

Bill Maher and Ben Affleck transcript
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Tell me this is not about race:
Bill Maher: These are liberal principles that liberals applaud for, but then when you say in the Muslim world this is what’s lacking, then they get upset.

Sam Harris: Yeah, liberals have really failed on the topic of theocracy. They’ll criticize white theocracy ...
But just because Harris has used "white", that doesn't make his or Maher's criticisms of Muslim theocracy necessarily "racist". That you apparently think so ...
That isn't what I think. What I think is that his popularity (and the popularity of some other atheist celebrities) is partly because his defamation campaigns against Muslims appeal to some people's race prejudices. A lot of people who demonize or dehumanize non-white people, think of Muslims in general as non-white people.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#107

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 6:57 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I said that I would say more here about the Muslim threat, but I don't really have much to say.
You "would say more", but you "don't have much to say"? Ooookaaay.
jimhabegger wrote:Only that I see a lot more worldwide destruction and bloodshed looming ahead of us, far worse than anything we've ever seen or heard of before, if the hostilities continue to escalate, and all I see you doing about it is promoting escalation.
You might well be right about the "destruction and bloodshed". Apropos of which, if you ever decide to get your head out of the sand and read Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim then I'll suggest paying close attention to the Foreword by one R. Joseph Hoffmann; a salient portion:
What we have is surely no more than one former Muslim’s view of his “former” life; but we are mistaken to read this as a coming-out saga. It is part-for-whole a late twentieth-century account of the shrinkage of religious culture, the universality of knowledge, and the inescapability of the humanistic culture, which will survive all particular forms of religion in the twenty-first century. Whether that process, inevitable as it seems to be, will be marked by violence or accepted with enlightened resignation by defenders of old religious orders and regimes will depend, it seems to me, on how books such as this one are read and received.
While you may think I'm just "promoting escalation", I kind of see it as more a case of confronting people with the facts. And I don't see that sticking your head in the sand - or the other proverbial place "where the sun don't shine" - has ever led to much of a solution. Unless you think embracing death qualifies as one for the problems of living.

But some facts you may wish to try addressing:



As far as I'm concerned, if Muslims are prepared to leave their "religion" behind them then they're welcome to immigrate. If not, then they can just fuck right off - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#108

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 7:04 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Technically, the page that I linked to is an example of histrionics. The hysteria is in people believing propaganda like that.
(decoys and red herrings snipped)
I'll revise what I said to "... the page that I linked to contains some examples of histrionics."

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#109

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 7:15 pm

Steersman wrote:... the rather credible survery done by the rather credible Pew Forum that the "Moral Compass" had linked to. Which I expect you never bothered to even look at ...
Wrong.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#110

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Steersman wrote:While you may think I'm just "promoting escalation", I kind of see it as more a case of confronting people with the facts.
I'm not talking about your views about Islam and Muslims. I'm talking about the actions and policies you're promoting. Which means that it was wrong for me to say that all I see you doing is promoting escalation. If it's done in the right spirit, I don't think that promoting your views about Islam and Muslims is promoting escalation of hostilities I should have said that all I see you proposing as solutions are escalations of the hostilities, with massive collateral damage.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#111

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 7:44 pm

Steersman, is there anything in any of the literature that you keep inviting me to read, besides bad things that people think and do, that they call "Islam"?

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#112

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 7:50 pm

Steersman, for whatever it's worth, your speculations about my character, motives and intentions, which permeate your posts, do nothing to help me understand or agree with anything you're saying. More the opposite.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#113

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 8:14 pm

Steersman, I have an idea. Let's see if we can agree on a reasonable upper limit for the number of specific examples of people thinking, saying and doing atrocious things in the name of Islam, in the articles you keep wanting me to read. Do you think that 100,000 would cover it?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#114

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 9:45 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I have an idea. Let's see if we can agree on a reasonable upper limit for the number of specific examples of people thinking, saying and doing atrocious things in the name of Islam, in the articles you keep wanting me to read. Do you think that 100,000 would cover it?
The number is less of an issue than the fact that you're clearly unwilling to address the root cause for it - i.e., that most Muslims (70% of American Muslims, probably 90% of World's Muslims) see the Quran as the literal word of Gawd. And are incapable of changing it. And unwilling to even make the attempt to do so.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#115

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 9:46 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:... the rather credible survery done by the rather credible Pew Forum that the "Moral Compass" had linked to. Which I expect you never bothered to even look at ...
Wrong.
In your opinion. Which doesn't seem worth a tinker's damn, not least because it is largely unevidenced.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#116

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 9:48 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, for whatever it's worth, your speculations about my character, motives and intentions, which permeate your posts, do nothing to help me understand or agree with anything you're saying. More the opposite.
Sometimes questions about "character, motives and intentions" are largely the crux of the matter. That people periodically object to such questions only tends to sharpen their points.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#117

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 9:51 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, is there anything in any of the literature that you keep inviting me to read, besides bad things that people think and do, that they call "Islam"?
"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy ...."

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#118

Post by Steersman » Sun May 22, 2016 9:56 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:While you may think I'm just "promoting escalation", I kind of see it as more a case of confronting people with the facts.
I'm not talking about your views about Islam and Muslims. I'm talking about the actions and policies you're promoting. Which means that it was wrong for me to say that all I see you doing is promoting escalation. If it's done in the right spirit, I don't think that promoting your views about Islam and Muslims is promoting escalation of hostilities.
Moving the goal posts.
jimhabegger wrote:I should have said that all I see you proposing as solutions are escalations of the hostilities, with massive collateral damage.
eggs, omeletes .... If Muslims aren't prepared to change then they have to bear some responsibilities for the consequences.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#119

Post by jimhabegger » Sun May 22, 2016 10:30 pm

Steersman, please see this post in my closet thread.

jimhabegger
.
.
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#120

Post by jimhabegger » Mon May 23, 2016 5:39 am

Steersman, here's a rough outline of what I see you saying.

The Quran promotes the worst kinds of violence, which makes it a danger to society. Furthermore, anyone who calls himself a Muslim is implicitly endorsing the Quran, which makes him a danger to society, unless he repudiates the Quran.

You see evidence for all that in reports of what people have done in the name of Islam, and in opinion polls.

To remedy those problems, you're proposing to remove the influence of the Quran, and of people who endorse it, by not allowing Muslims into the country, by banning Islam, and by deporting Muslims who don't repudiate the Quran.

Is that right? Am I missing anything?

Post Reply