[SolarCross]

Piers Morgan vs the Karen Bradley, culture secretary.

[noir]

They are still quarreling

And

[Oxymandias]

@noir

Because apparently Muslims can't be angry about mosque bombing and Quran burnings at the same time. Muslims in the West just don't care about it because who cares about a brown desert person's mosque being blown up? What matter to them is what would happen if a mosque around them blows up, then they'll care. This effect is known as the Ingroup Outgroup. You @noir also use this effect in regards to your absolute antipathy towards the deaths of others.

[noir]

The face of the bien pensant conformism of the middle classes. They are so certain in their world view

The clueless British police (which for long time refused to investigate Rotherham rape scandal for fear of being called "racist") is part of the problem

[noir]

Muslims are getting a taste from their own medicine

And another one


Six injured as car crashes into group of Muslims leaving Eid prayers outside Westgate sports centre in Newcastle
Police say collision is not believed to be terror-related

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06971.html

[Oxymandias]

@noir

I don't see what you're saying here. Obviously you aren't defending Muslims (by the time you would say something even remotely positive about Muslims hell would've frozen over) but what is the point of calling the police incompetent and then linking to a video of a car running into Muslims?

And if you mean to show that "the EVVVIIILLLL MONOLITHIC MOHAMEDEDEDEDIANS" are getting a big dose of Kool-Aid then I only quote this:

"So Muslims, being of dozens of nations and cultures and etc, need to apologize for the actions of some of them.
But westerners, being also of dozens of nations and cultures and etc, don't need to apologize for the actions of some of them ?
Even when the actions of those few from either side, both at the same time kill thousands of people and destroy the lives of many, with the emphasis on the fact that the few on the westerners side destroy many more lives and kill many many more civilians ?"

"If for some reason Muslims have to take responsibility for terrorist attacks done by tiny minority of the overall Islamic civilization. Then westerners surely have to also take responsibility for the action of the small minority of them running around murdering and massacring 10s of thousands of civilians and destroying entire nations around the world."

"Yes, you heard that right. If we have to take responsibility for the actions of Jihadis, you have to take responsibility for the actions of Americans.
And that bullshit about you being German not an American or that you maybe hostile to them or don't like them also doesn't work either. Because we're also hostile to those Jihadis and according to your logic we still have to take responsibility for their actions."

As you can see, not everyone on this thread is a stupid moron and not everything on this thread is an Islam circlejerk.

[Rugoz]

"If for some reason Muslims have to take responsibility for terrorist attacks done by tiny minority of the overall Islamic civilization. Then westerners surely have to also take responsibility for the action of the small minority of them running around murdering and massacring 10s of thousands of civilians and destroying entire nations around the world."

Ignoring the "destroying entire nations" bullshit and lazy America-blaming for a moment: I don't think anyone has ever denied that people in in the West are responsible for the foreign policy of their governments to some degree. Wars can get very ugly though if civilians are targeted, so it's important to uphold the illusion of innocence.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

When did it specifically say America? This could easily be applied to Europe which has in fact destroyed many nations sometimes even literally.

Yet whenever something horrible the West did to other countries is brought up here it is either discarded or ignored let alone apologized for yet many people here expect Muslims to apologize for every attack as if they were personally responsible for as if, by being Muslim, their very existence is the cause of this attack and therefore supporting it. Not only that but many people in the West, whenever something like this is brought up, they usually express disagreement over that action and blame their government for that action. Then they separate themselves from the government and profess themselves as individuals. However when a Muslim does this either living in Europe or living in a Middle Eastern country he is mocked for doing so and humiliated. Afterward people continue to assume that Muslims are a monolithic entity and not individuals themselves.

So apparently the West hasn't targeted civilians in foreign wars? I find the idea that they haven't ridiculous. That's like saying Europe plays fair in every war with foreign countries it's ignorant and overtly eurocentric. Also if the West can uphold an illusion of innocence then so can the Middle East. Therefore we too can discard any attacks made by extremists and make jokes about them.

Also I find your excessive chauvinism towards anything in the Middle East and Islam (the literal mention of it expresses as sense of passive aggressiveness) profoundly alarming. Your just a little bit off from going towards Zionist Nationalist and Suntzu levels of intolerance and ignorance. At least now you are approachable and I am able to have an engaging and productive conversation with you but this can change with a slight increase in intolerance. I don't think I can make you see Islam more favorably through PoFo, that requires more outside experiences to shape that idea. The only thing I can recommend is to get a couple of friends from the Middle East who lived there and try to understand it's culture. I would also encourage you to delve deeper into Middle Eastern history and try to understand the reasons for why the Middle East is the way it is. I also recommend you read about it with an open-mind and a respectful mind. This is absolutely important because if you don't then you may end up with a more intolerant perception of the Middle East so you need to develop an open-mind and see the Middle East not as a desert hellscape with thousands of brown people who go around killing people and who live in dirt houses and more as this multi-cultural, multi-ethnic region with very unique answers to very unique problems. Also if you find a religious anything just look at it from a secular point of view, not to find out whether or not it is bad but to understand the function that this religious thing is supposed to fufill. Religion means something very different in the Middle East than you think.

[noir]

@noir

I don't see what you're saying here. Obviously you aren't defending Muslims (by the time you would say something even remotely positive about Muslims hell would've frozen over) but what is the point of calling the police incompetent and then linking to a video of a car running into Muslims?

Found some good Muslims. Not sure if they are sincere

[Oxymandias]

@noir

The fact that the only way you can find "good" Muslims is through promotional material against terrorism goes to show how disconnected you are from actual Muslims. You will never find something in real life that a Muslim has done against terrorism not because there isn't but because there is a dissonance between you and the thoughts and minds of actual Muslims which are varied. Your stupid attempt at proving that Muslims are liars through linking promotional material shows this dissonance. The actions in the video may be simply staged but guess what? That's the point, it's promotional material against terrorism which was created by people who are against terrorism for a variety of reasons. To these people, speaking out against terrorism through persuasion and peace is a very important thing to them personally.

But you won't understand that, you'll never understand that because you refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe Muslims and Middle Easterners are human beings with complex thoughts and emotions that are equal to yours. You never consider this because if you did it would damage your political beliefs and make you question them which is hard for most people and since you don't want that, you refuse to humanize them.

[Rugoz]

Also if the West can uphold an illusion of innocence then so can the Middle East.

I was talking about the rules of war. Clearly civilians have been essential to many war efforts yet targeting them is considered morally repugnant. Now you're thinking: OMG, he thinks the world is at war against Islam. And I would say yes, certainly, at least against the vast majority of today's interpretations, if a conflict of ideologies deserves the label 'war'. I would never say it publicly though. It would not be productive.

Also I find your excessive chauvinism towards anything in the Middle East and Islam (the literal mention of it expresses as sense of passive aggressiveness) profoundly alarming.

My contempt for religion is nothing new. Islam just tops the cake at this day and age. I don't have a problem with superstitious believes in general, only with the part where moral law is derived from them.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

The only extremist parts of Islam are Salafism and Wahhabism how is that supposed to be a vast majority of the interpretations of Islam? So you're going to kill of Quranism, Sufism, Sunnism (which contains a democratic voting in it's favored government), Shiasim (which contains many rationalist Islamic sects), Bahaism (which advocates for unlimited love for others and the unity of god), and Ahmadiyya (which is essentially the Mormonism of Islam). Not only that but the Western world is not at war with Islam but their own interpretation of Islam. Not only that but everyone in the West sees Islam differently and has different viewpoints on it.

How is a conflict of ideologies mean that the entirety of the world is putting collective effort to fight a vague book and a pile of scrolls?

And finally, what does this have to do with the rules of war? What does the entire world being at war with Islam have to do with civilians being killed?

That isn't contempt just for religion, it is for the entirety of the Middle East. You aren't just chauvinist towards Islam but also the Middle East. It seems to me that you hate the Middle East so I recommend that you do everything I said in my last post (the one you responded to) and fix your perception of the Middle East. Sharia Law isn't necessary to be Muslims since Sharia Law was created after the death of Mohammed so nothing in the Quran says anything about Sharia Law.

So are you implying Islam is apparently the worst religions out of all of them?

[Rugoz]

The only extremist parts of Islam are Salafism and Wahhabism how is that supposed to be a vast majority of the interpretations of Islam? So you're going to kill of Quranism, Sufism, Sunnism (which contains a democratic voting in it's favored government), Shiasim (which contains many rationalist Islamic sects), Bahaism (which advocates for unlimited love for others and the unity of god), and Ahmadiyya (which is essentially the Mormonism of Islam). Not only that but the Western world is not at war with Islam but their own interpretation of Islam. Not only that but everyone in the West sees Islam differently and has different viewpoints on it.

I admit my knowledge of Islam is pretty limited. What I see are the results: The terrorism, the attitudes of (devote) Muslims according to polls and election outcomes, the sectarianism and conflict in the ME. All of which not surprising to me given the nature of religion.

And finally, what does this have to do with the rules of war? What does the entire world being at war with Islam have to do with civilians being killed?

Maybe because ISIS wants to kill as many civilians as possible?

Sharia Law isn't necessary to be Muslims since Sharia Law was created after the death of Mohammed so nothing in the Quran says anything about Sharia Law.

I wasn't referring to Sharia law in particular. Clearly religious people morally judge things based on God's word (Bible, Quran). Most of it is trivial and non-controversial, but since the major religions were perceived 1000+ years ago there's also a lot of ancient, barbaric nonsense in them (note that religions are nothing but human constructs, if you don't believe that we can end this dicussion right now).

So are you implying Islam is apparently the worst religions out of all of them?

In terms of impact today, absolutely.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

So you're telling me that Islam directly lead to all of those things? If you're willing to believe that then you need to reevaluate your understanding of Middle Eastern politics. Everything you mentioned are caused by socio-economic situations not by Islam directly.If you truly believe that religion is a social construct then you must understand that it can be manipulated to fit the needs of whatever society is present at the time. Is Islam a factor? Yes. Is it the core reason? No.

I think your antipathy towards religion is blinding you since you seem so overtly obsessed with proving that Islam is the core reason of the conflicts of the Middle East. Islam isn't the core reason for the conflicts of the Middle East, you're smart enough to see that, you just want it to be because it validates your beliefs about religion, it proves that religion causes people to do horrible things. However cause does not equal effect and by it's definition religion cannot be the cause of any major conflict due to the reasons I addressed in the above paragraph.

This is why I hate anyone using "Islamic world" to define the Middle East and "Muslims" to define Middle Easterners since it falsely frames all of Middle Eastern politics in religion.

But based on the context of that post this would mean that you are implying that the West can discard any form of Western military actions against others including civilians while Muslims must continue to apologize for the actions of ISIS and other extremist groups.

ISIS does not intend to kill as many civilians as possible but to cause as much terror as possible. Their goal is to encourage hasty political decisions that could gain them more supporters and troops.

Then what were you referring to? You never stated anything at about it at all. Your previous point was that you hate any religion in which moral law is derived from it and now you say you have no problem with it. Also what does your last sentence in the paraphrase have to do with anything? I already told you that religion is a social construct (a social construct not human construct. Social construct is a more descriptive than human construct).

I find that judgement unfair. How can a vague book and a pile of scrolls do impact anything? And we already know the actions of Muslims in many Muslim countries to be influenced by socio-economic situations so in a sense, Islam didn't do anything to be worse than the others.

[Rugoz]

@Oxymandias What's with all the strawmen?

Is Islam a factor? Yes. Is it the core reason? No.

I didn't say Islam is the "core reason". Islam first and foremost perpetuates the current condition.

However cause does not equal effect and by it's definition religion cannot be the cause of any major conflict due to the reasons I addressed in the above paragraph.

Certainly religion can be the core reason of conflict, history proves that, even though it's used as an instrument most of the time. That doesn't make it any better.

But based on the context of that post this would mean that you are implying that the West can discard any form of Western military actions against others including civilians while Muslims must continue to apologize for the actions of ISIS and other extremist groups.

ISIS does not intend to kill as many civilians as possible but to cause as much terror as possible. Their goal is to encourage hasty political decisions that could gain them more supporters and troops.

You don't get my point, let's stop this part.

Your previous point was that you hate any religion in which moral law is derived from it and now you say you have no problem with it.

I never said I have no problem with it.

I find that judgement unfair. How can a vague book and a pile of scrolls do impact anything?

Seriously?

[MadMonk]

Europe (a very general definition which varies greatly by which country/region we are talking about, same with the middle east) saw over a thousand years of scientific and cultural stagnation under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

Several hundred years of religious wars and oppression, the theocratic power-structure was finally brought down and is now only slightly influential depending on which country.

We will never again accept any religion trying to make inroads into education, science, culture or politics. We still live with shadows of our own corrupted faith, we have no need for another.

I think this discussion is good as it gives glimpses on how one views the world depending on where you are. I usually don't attack religions because they mean practically nothing where I live, roughly 82% of all Swedes are today believed to be atheist (+-5% for standard deviation).

Critique and satire must always be allowed and encouraged, at every set of beliefs and ideologies. I can understand how this can be interpreted as euro-centric supremacism, but as much as you value your faith and identity, we value these freedoms as much or more.

Criticising Islam and its tenets is not Islamophobia, only the extremists belive that (on both sides).

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

All your doing is rewording your words. Perpetuate is a synonym of cause and ergo cause is a synonym of perpetuate. Therefore we can replace perpetuate with cause and vice versa. So then your statement would now be: "Islam first and foremost causes the current condition". And even if this wasn't the case, perpetuate by definition means to continue to cause indefinitely. You are still asserting that Islam is causing the conflicts of the Middle East in which case my argument does not change.

It cannot be an instrument of a conflict and be the core reason for it. If religion is an instrument in a conflict then there must be an ulterior motive above religion. If not then the religion cannot be and instrument since a political instrument is a social construct that is manipulated to fulfill the political needs of whoever controls it. If religion is the core reason (which is impossible because it is a social construct) then it must be the mastermind behind the conflict not an instrument to be used by the mastermind.

If a child is manipulated into accidentally killing someone does this mean that the child is just as bad as a sadistic serial killer?

I think you don't understand the point of this topic. Your post was profoundly off-topic if my interpretation was incorrect. Your post was vague and didn't even discuss either my post nor the topic at hand.

Oh really?:

"My contempt for religion is nothing new. Islam just tops the cake at this day and age. I don't have a problem with superstitious believes in general, only with the part where moral law is derived from them."

"I wasn't referring to Sharia law in particular. Clearly religious people morally judge things based on God's word (Bible, Quran). Most of it is trivial and non-controversial, but since the major religions were perceived 1000+ years ago there's also a lot of ancient, barbaric nonsense in them (note that religions are nothing but human constructs, if you don't believe that we can end this dicussion right now)."

Here you are admitting that most of religious moral code is trivial and non-controversial and that many religions share. If you describe religious moral code as trivial and non-controversial then you must not have a problem with it.

Then you are referring to the actions of Muslims who have complex emotions, needs and beliefs outside of religion. If you assume that Islam causes most of the problems of the world today they you must demonize and mock the individual Muslims who are the people who have an actual bearing on how Islam affects the world. So what I want you to do is write a post here talking about how Muslims are the worst people out of all of them in terms of impact and how only Muslims and only due to their belief in Islam (it can't be because of poverty, food, financial stability, or upbringing) caused everything in the Middle East.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

It's not strawmanning if I'm responding to your posts. I'm not attacking the idea of Islamic criticism but your own personal Islamic criticism which doesn't even qualify as Islamic criticism.

[Rugoz]

All your doing is rewording your words. Perpetuate is a synonym of cause and ergo cause is a synonym of perpetuate. Therefore we can replace perpetuate with cause and vice versa.

Wtf?

The socioeconomic factors ("the core") drive the Muslim world (I know you don't like the term but I'll use it for the time being) towards modernity, Islam acts as a brake on that. I see religion as a force (or a tool) of conservation. It's anti-progressive, or has been for most of its history.

It cannot be an instrument of a conflict and be the core reason for it.

Sure it can. It can be both in different circumstances. It is very hard to argue for example that Christianity has not been the core reason behind some conflicts in the religious wars in Europe. I'm also not sure Christianity was conceived as an instrument. Jesus and his followers might actually have believed it, though we obviously don't know it. Either way, I don't really care about that part because to goal stays the same regardless.

Here you are admitting that most of religious moral code is trivial and non-controversial and that many religions share. If you describe religious moral code as trivial and non-controversial then you must not have a problem with it.

Now you're getting silly. I reject and always will reject the basic premise of (the major) religions, namely that we must utilize superstition to enforce morality in our societies.

As for "trivial and non-controversial", you deliberately missed the "barbaric nonsense" part. In the case religions would be all "trivial and non-controversial", which they are not, I guess I would not have a problem with them in the sense that their existence would be irrelevant to political life.

If you assume that Islam causes most of the problems of the world today

Strawman, I didn't say that.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

Call it the Middle East like a normal person. Why do you need to call it the Muslim world?

And you're making no sense. First off, socio-economic factors control culture and culture controls religion since religion is a social construct. Currently the socio-economic situation of the Middle East is very unstable both economically and socially. Therefore, culture and religion is an expression of that socio-economic situation and that is why both Islam and the culture of the Middle East is backwards and anti-progressive.

You do realize that Islam is anti-forced conversion right? "No compulsion in religion" as the Quran states apparently. Also it hasn't been anti-progressive for most of it's history at all in fact, if we are to look at what progressivism is as an ideology, then that's completely false. Islam is certainly not pro-progressive but it certainly isn't anti-progressive. Also simply because the Islamic Empire spread through violence doesn't mean Islam spreads through violence. From the Umayyad Caliphate to the Ottoman Empire Islam as a whole was more progressive than Christianity.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What wars in Europe have been due to Christianity exactly and not due to politics? In fact with the information we have on those conflicts there's proof that they are due to politics and not religion. Are many of them influenced by religion? Yes. Did many of the people who fought in those wars believe truly that they were fighting for a religious cause? Yes. But is religion the main reason? No. Religion was never the main reason for a conflict at all, it was simply used as an aesthetic for what is simply a socio-economic war, a war that was due to purely human needs.

In one the goal is to use religion to accomplish something else. In the other religion is an end in it of itself. These are two very different goals.

This isn't about the basic premise of religion, this is about you saying moral code is a big deal (since you used moral code it seems that you are referencing Sharia Law) and then saying then saying it's not a big deal.

The barbaric nonsense part combined with the previous sentence indicates that you do in fact think that the moral code of religions is in fact not an issue. I never stated that you said that religions are trivial and non-controversial but that religious moral code is trivial and non-controversial when you said previously the opposite.


"I didn't say Islam is the "core reason". Islam first and foremost perpetuates the current condition."

"I admit my knowledge of Islam is pretty limited. What I see are the results: The terrorism, the attitudes of (devote) Muslims according to polls and election outcomes, the sectarianism and conflict in the ME. All of which not surprising to me given the nature of religion."

Here you are taking everything that is a problem with the Middle East and blaming Islam for it.

ME: So are you implying Islam is apparently the worst religions out of all of them?

YOU: In terms of impact today, absolutely.