What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[Evie]

Bad things are done in the name of Christianity (that is, the people doing them claim to act in that name). To this day. (See: Abortion clinic bombings). We don't condemn or frown on all Christians for it. Bad thing are done in the name of "Whiteness" (see: Charleston shooting). We don't condemn all white folks for it.

Muslims have every right to expect the same treatment. Blame the people carrying out the acts ; not the much larger group they falsely claim to fight for. There is no legitimate reason to view all of Islam negatively for the actions a few claim to perpetrate in their names.

You also specifically refered to "Whitewashed" version of the religion. The implication being that those who follow the non-violent version are not the "True" Muslims. That says a lot about your opinion...

 

[JollyRoger]

I am beginning to think that some of our posters here could be candidates to be rounded up for our safety based on their insistence that they know what true Islam is and anyone that doesn't believe in the violent nature of Islam that they believe in is not a true Muslim. Sounds kind of ISISy to me.

 

[Ryika]

Bad things are done in the name of Christianity (that is, the people doing them claim to act in that name). To this day. (See: Abortion clinic bombings). We don't condemn or frown on all Christians for it. Bad thing are done in the name of "Whiteness" (see: Charleston shooting). We don't condemn all white folks for it.

I can't really comment on many of these things, here in Germany we basically hear nothing about any bombings of Abortion Clinics, because we basically don't have any hardline Christians (Angela Merkel is part of what is supposed to be the party of conservative "Believers"...). The people who take Christianity seriously seem to be somewhat local to America, so that is not much of an issue here. However, when it came to light that the Pope helped to hide that some people of the church enjoy putting their hands on little boys, yes, Christianity took a big hit in popularity (not that it was very popular in the first place).

That's exactly what one would expect, I mean you wouldn't make the argument that "Well, these people who are high-rank men of the church like to have sex with kids, but let's not let that negatively influence our view on Christianity!", or would you?

Well, maybe you would, but that would not change the fact that yes, it's only natural that this does negatively influence the opinion that people have about Christianity. Other Christians who disagree with what the Church is doing should distance themselves from what is happening and condemn it.

Muslims have every right to expect the same treatment. Blame the people carrying out the acts ; not the much larger group they falsely claim to fight for. There is no legitimate reason to view all of Islam negatively for the actions a few claim to perpetrate in their names.

See, if you have two groups using the same name, following the same book and following the same prophet, then what one of these groups does will change how people think about the name that is used for both groups.

I mean, it doesn't work the other way around, does it? "Praise the people doing good in the name of Islam ; not the much larger group they falsely claim to represent."?

I mean, don't get me wrong: The bad stuff that bad people do in the name of Islam should NOT influence what people think about the good people who also follow Islam. But you can't expect people to close their eyes and be like: "Lalala, those are not true Muslims!"

You also specifically refered to "Whitewashed" version of the religion. The implication being that those who follow the non-violent version are not the "True" Muslims. That says a lot about your opinion...

They are certainly not the Muslims that existed in history. Which is to be expected, history was brutal and thankfully religions change to keep up while societies become (theoretically) less and less violent.

 

[Evie]

That's exactly what one would expect, I mean you wouldn't make the argument that "Well, these people who are high-rank men of the church like to have sex with kids, but let's not let that negatively influence our view on Christianity!", or would you?

I would absolutely make that argument.

Viewing Joe Christian or even Joe Catholic (that is, a lay person who happens to be a follower of that same faith) more negatively because some people within the hierarchy of the Church raped children is complete nonsense.

The Church is not the religion.

They are certainly not the Muslims that existed in history. Which is to be expected, history was brutal and thankfully religions change to keep up while societies become (theoretically) less and less violent.

Calling that Whitewashing implies rather strongly that these changes are negative.

 

[CavLancer]

If its little green men who had done the terror attacks then France would be trying to figure out the best way to hit back at little green men, and not because of their color. If France becomes a punching bag it will get hit a lot, just ask any punching bag.

 

[Nathiri]

Bad things are done in the name of Christianity (that is, the people doing them claim to act in that name). To this day. (See: Abortion clinic bombings). We don't condemn or frown on all Christians for it. Bad thing are done in the name of "Whiteness" (see: Charleston shooting). We don't condemn all white folks for it.

Muslims have every right to expect the same treatment. Blame the people carrying out the acts ; not the much larger group they falsely claim to fight for. There is no legitimate reason to view all of Islam negatively for the actions a few claim to perpetrate in their names.

You also specifically refered to "Whitewashed" version of the religion. The implication being that those who follow the non-violent version are not the "True" Muslims. That says a lot about your opinion...

The thing is, the reason it doesnt reflect on all Christians is, it is clear it doesnt represent the teachings of the Bible and there are far too many examples in history and in the teachings of the Bible that Christians are not to do such acts. Islam on the other hand, has had a rather violent history and hasnt made much of an attempt to correct it. There are far too many examples in their holy book and of their people that they are allowed to do such things as has been done. Almost all developed nations today used to be predominately Christian nations and you can see clear differences compared to other nations because of Christian influence. Now compare that to predominately Muslim countries.

That is not to say there is not Muslims who do not do and and do not support those acts. But they havent been very convincing in becoming the peaceful Islam that is being put forward by some. They need to make clear where exactly they stand.

 

[Arwon]

Conservatives' yearning for Islam is the love that dare not speak its name

Actually, the attraction the jihadis exert over radicalised youths probably isn’t that different from the sentiment oozing from the conservative press: a profound disaffection with liberal modernity.

The hideous cycle of terror and war will not be ended by western nations retreating into anti-modern authoritarianism, something that seems increasingly on the cards. That’s why we need less pontificating about freedom as an abstraction and much more discussion of the specific freedoms under assault in the here and now.

In particular, progressives cannot content themselves with propping up a liberalism that lacks a base of its own. We need rather to radicalise liberty, filling the seemingly lifeless shells of democracy, justice and freedom with a deeper, more meaningful content.

To put it another way, to defeat the craving for reaction, we must hold modernity to the promises it makes but so often fails to deliver.

 

[Evie]

That is not to say there is not Muslims who do not do and and do not support those acts. But they havent been very convincing in becoming the peaceful Islam that is being put forward by some. They need to make clear where exactly they stand.

They have.

That you weren't paying attention because it didn't fit your prejudices isn't their fault.

 

[Arwon]

If any passingly significant fraction of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world wanted to kill us we'd all be dead.

 

[Ryika]

I would absolutely make that argument.

Viewing Joe Christian or even Joe Catholic (that is, a lay person who happens to be a follower of that same faith) more negatively because some people within the hierarchy of the Church raped children is complete nonsense.

The Church is not the religion.

Okay, that example was probably a bad one, I admit that. Even I don't agree that when the corrupt organization that is the church lays their hands on children that doesn't have anything to do with Christianity as a whole.

But that doesn't really translate into what is happening in Islam, given that in many Islamic countries homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and other forms of prejudice are rampant. Not only that, but in the minds of many, people who draw pictures of the prophet, people who want to leave Islam and women who have sex before marriage are to be killed. All of this can be and is being supported by citing their holy book.

So these people clearly are part of what is bundled under the banner of Islam.

Coming back to this part here...

Viewing Joe Christian [...] more negatively

...I think I already explained that. Thinking that overall Islam is not a religion of peace does not mean that I value Achmed Muslim as a person differently. That is not what...

close to or more than half of its population respond to polls by saying they have an unfavorable view of Islam.

...tells us. All it tells us is that more than half of the people >overall< have an unfavorable view of Islam.

Don't get this wrong: Yes, Brandon Braindead will probably change his opinion about Achmed Muslim on the basis of "Them Muslim Terrorists done bad stuff, you Muslim too!", but that's why condemning and distancing oneself from these things is so important.


But of course then you also have stuff like this playing into the equation:

1 in 3 British Muslim Students want Sharia-law (as an alternative for Muslims)
61% of British Muslims think homosexuality is wrong and that it should be illegal

Or this:

8. If shariah conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which law should be
considered supreme?

43% THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS
33% SHARIAH
17% DON&#8217;T KNOW
8% NO ANSWER

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....nline-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

The sample-size of that study is really low (600 Muslim-Americans), but still... what the hell. These are supposed to be the Muslims to find ways to explain away the bad stuff in their religion, thereby updating it and making it compatible with current-day values - not support the outdated nonsense that is written there.

Overall it is no wonder that the people's view on Islam is a negative one.

Calling that Whitewashing implies rather strongly that these changes are negative.

I don't see how whitewashing implies that these changes are negative. When I say that they're whitewashing the religion, what I mean is that they're moving away from the barbaric parts of the religion and focus on the peaceful parts (in theory).

That was and is meant to be a neutral statement that describes what they're doing. If others agree that there is an implication that this is a negative thing, then I'm probably just using the word incorrectly.

 

[JollyRoger]

The thing is, the reason it doesnt reflect on all Christians is, it is clear it doesnt represent the teachings of the Bible and there are far too many examples in history and in the teachings of the Bible that Christians are not to do such acts. Islam on the other hand, has had a rather violent history and hasnt made much of an attempt to correct it. There are far too many examples in their holy book and of their people that they are allowed to do such things as has been done. Almost all developed nations today used to be predominately Christian nations and you can see clear differences compared to other nations because of Christian influence. Now compare that to predominately Muslim countries.

That is not to say there is not Muslims who do not do and and do not support those acts. But they havent been very convincing in becoming the peaceful Islam that is being put forward by some. They need to make clear where exactly they stand.

Given how the Bible ends, Christians are planning on being very violent in the future, so us non-Christians should maybe think about precautionary measures.

 

[Arwon]

Heyooooo

 

[Galgus]

@Ryika

As a tiny off-topic on the Pope and Christianity, most Christians who aren't Catholic don't really care what the Pope thinks beyond a foreign curiosity, like English royalty, and similarly don't see the Catholic Church as a religious authority.

I'm not accusing you of doing it, but it's not really fair to look down on Christianity as a whole for what the Catholic Church does.

 

[bhavv]

People who just keep on repeating 'not all Muslims' ... 'Look at Christians' seem to be missing that apologist attitudes are going to do nothing to prevent or do anything about terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.

What do you rather suggest we do in response to terrorism other than ignoring the issue under apologetic political correctness?

 

[Evie]

In the general terms? Have the police arrest any guilty criminals, and maintain (and improve, to the extent existing laws allow) law enforcement. Same answer as any other crime/murder.

Because quite frankly, the odds of dying in a successful terror attacks are already so low that the gain in safety to be made with further laws are minimal, compared to the cost of making those laws.

Terrorist attacks are flashy as all hell, and their victims never deserve it, but ultimately, they're just a risk you can't even be fully safe from. Like you can't ever be safe from murder, or from a car crash. They're just risks we have to live with. Reduce them where they can be reduced without compromising individual rights, and accept them where they can't.

 

[Arwon]

People who just keep on repeating 'not all Muslims' ... 'Look at Christians' seem to be missing that apologist attitudes are going to do nothing to prevent or do anything about terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.

What do you rather suggest we do in response to terrorism other than ignoring the issue under apologetic political correctness?

Could really ask the same here. Round all Muslims up? Permanent war? End freedom?

 

[Agent327]

...I think I already explained that. Thinking that overall Islam is not a religion of peace does not mean that I value Achmed Muslim as a person differently.

I guess you missed the post just before yours...

Don't get this wrong: Yes, Brandon Braindead will probably change his opinion about Achmed Muslim on the basis of "Them Muslim Terrorists done bad stuff, you Muslim too!", but that's why condemning and distancing oneself from these things is so important.

If that is supposed to be argument, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premiss. (Not to mention that Christians rarely distance themselves from bad things other Christians do, simply because they are not part of that particular brand of Christianity.Terrorism, by the way, has no religion. It's a political method.) Seeing as most victims of supposedly Muslim terror are in fact Muslims, the whole argument - such as it is - falls flat on its face.

But of course then you also have stuff like this playing into the equation:

1 in 3 British Muslim Students want Sharia-law (as an alternative for Muslims)
61% of British Muslims think homosexuality is wrong and that it should be illegal

Daily Mail... That's nice. Of course Muslims in Britain are an insignificant minority. But that apart, I think you will find that people in general don't really have a positive attitude of homosexuality. This is why why have laws.

Or this:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....nline-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

The sample-size of that study is really low (600 Muslim-Americans), but still... what the hell. These are supposed to be the Muslims to find ways to explain away the bad stuff in their religion, thereby updating it and making it compatible with current-day values - not support the outdated nonsense that is written there.

Overall it is no wonder that the people's view on Islam is a negative one.

Is it? A 600 interviewee sample isn't even remotely statistically significant. It seems to me people who view Islam in a negative way are looking simply for ways to confirm such prejudice.

 

[sophie]

Could really ask the same here. Round all Muslims up? Permanent war? End freedom?

Question answers itself:

 

[Berzerker]

People who just keep on repeating 'not all Muslims' ... 'Look at Christians'

Strange argument indeed, 500 years ago Christians were terrorizing Europe therefore Islam is the religion of peace

 

[Evie]

Not to mention that the poll was conducted on behalf of an organization that is dedicated to arguing the existence of a "global jihad to impose Sharia law in the west and the United States". An organization that has been accused of spreading islamophobic conspiracy theories by such noted luminaries of the "liberal" establishment as Grover Norquist, the Washington Post and the Anti-Defamation League.

Small sample size + poll run on behalf of an organization with an extreme vested interest in getting specific result = not worth the paper the poll is printed on.