What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[Ryika]

Why are you making a distinction between a religion and an area that has shared cultural norms? What exactly is so different between the two that allows you to generalise about one but not the other?

Culture changes as a society changes, a holy text always stays the same. The same passages that have been used to justify stoning homosexuals 500 years ago can still be used to justify stoning homosexuals, especially if the holy text is claimed to be infallible. There is no such thing in Culture. (<- Although, to be fair, Ideologies come close to being a midground between the two)

And then you go on to contradict yourself by saying that people "should" generalise about East Asia if the situation is really that bad there. I'm telling you, when it comes to prejudice, it is.

But that's not all. You then offer a reason for why people treat Islam in a special way: It's because they have to live with Muslims. So there we have it, the reason why we're even having this conversation: Islam is being singled out simply because people's attention are on it, and not because it's necessarily any worse than some other grouping of people.

Okay, let's just assume this to be 100% true: How is that an argument against being honest about Islam? If anything that -could be- an argument that people should spend more attention to other parts of the world that are also bad.

If your argument is that the Islamic world is judged harsher than other parts of the world then yes, that may very well be true. But this is not because people are judging Islam unfairly, it's because people are unaware of how bad other parts of the world are. The bad things that are done in the name of Islam do not become less bad just because these bad things are also done in other parts of the world.

Or maybe this is the "disconnect" between our stances: Islam is what the people following Islam are. It may very well be that all of the bad things that people do in the name of Islam do not come from Islam itself but is just the nature of humanity at a certain stage of development. This does not change that the text of Islam are used to justify what people do. "Islam" is not a separate entity, we do not need to hold it higher than the average of its followers.

 

[aelf]

Culture changes as a society changes, a holy text always stays the same. The same passages that have been used to justify stoning homosexuals 500 years ago can still be used to justify stoning homosexuals, especially if the holy text is claimed to be infallible. There is no such thing in Culture. (<- Although, to be fair, Ideologies come close to being a midground between the two)

So Christianity has not changed since 500 years ago because its holy text stayed the same?

Okay, let's just assume this to be 100% true: How is that an argument against being honest about Islam? If anything that -could be- an argument that people should spend more attention to other parts of the world that are also bad.

If your argument is that the Islamic world is judged harsher than other parts of the world then yes, that may very well be true. But this is not because people are judging Islam unfairly, it's because people are unaware of how bad other parts of the world are. The bad things that are done in the name of Islam do not become less bad just because these bad things are also done in other parts of the world.

Alright, judge the whole world, then. Just like how ISIS supporters and sympathizers judge the West as a whole based on its actions in the Third World and the Middle East. And that's how we ended up in this situation. Hooray!

Or maybe this is the "disconnect" between our stances: Islam is what the people following Islam are. It may very well be that all of the bad things that people do in the name of Islam do not come from Islam itself but is just the nature of humanity at a certain stage of development. This does not change that the text of Islam are used to justify what people do. "Islam" is not a separate entity, we do not need to hold it higher than the average of its followers.

So somehow this argument allows you to invalidate the claims of people who do not agree that ISIS is representative of Islam or Muslims?

 

[Ryika]

So Christianity has not changed since 500 years ago because its holy text stayed the same?

The way Christianity is being practiced has changed, yes, but only as a reaction to changes in Culture that would have rendered it irrelevant if Christianity had not moved with the time. Christianity was never a force that changed our Culture to remove what we'd call injustice today, it slowed down our process in doing that.

We can even see it today. The people who are against ALL forms of abortion (even after rape or if it is clear that the child will only be born to live a life in pain) are mostly Christians. Not because they have any good reason, but just because they justify their stance with their faith. Luckily, there are only very few Christians left who take their faith that seriously and are so true to the original, barbaric texts, but unfortunately this is not true for Islam as a whole. The Koran is very alive and followed very literally by many people.

Overall, the changes in Culture come from within, as people develop and become more sensible towards injustice. Religions are almost always forces that (are used as a reason to) stand against change.

Alright, judge the whole world, then. Just like how ISIS supporters and sympathizers judge the West as a whole based on its actions in the Third World and the Middle East. And that's how we ended up in this situation. Hooray!

We all "judge the world", even by closing your eyes and hiding from all negative that is done in the name of Islam you're still casting a judgement. All that's different is that you're dishonest to yourself, because you very well know that, if you were to open your eyes, you would see a truth that you don't like. If you didn't expect that, you'd not have a reason to close your eyes in the first place.

The rest is just Black and White thinking though. "We must have a positive view of Islam, or else we just take part in the spiral of hate!!!" is an utterly stupid concept. The first step of ANY positive change is to acknowledge that things currently aren't good.

So somehow this argument allows you to invalidate the claims of people who do not agree that ISIS is not representative of Islam or Muslims?

Black and White thinking again. Not all Muslims share the same ideas and nobody should judge individual Muslims by what the average Muslims thinks. That does not change the fact that if 80% of all Muslims in the world say homosexuality is wrong I this will paint my view of overall Islam negatively.

I don't even know how you have managed to get ISIS back into the equation, it is not ISIS vs. the good Muslims, it's a high percentage of Muslims - most of which are not part of ISIS - who have bad views on homosexuality and other topics, ISIS is, at best, the faction that shines the spotlight on these issues.

 

[brennan]

The cultures Christianity parasitises have changed greatly. Christianity has not. Ref: the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[aelf]

The way Christianity is being practiced has changed, yes, but only as a reaction to changes in Culture that would have rendered it irrelevant if Christianity had not moved with the time. Christianity was never a force that changed our Culture to remove what we'd call injustice today, it slowed down our process in doing that.

We can even see it today. The people who are against ALL forms of abortion (even after rape or if it is clear that the child will only be born to live a life in pain) are mostly Christians. Not because they have any good reason, but just because they justify their stance with their faith. Luckily, there are only very few Christians left who take their faith that seriously and are so true to the original, barbaric texts, but unfortunately this is not true for Islam as a whole. The Koran is very alive and followed very literally by many people.

Overall, the changes in Culture come from within, as people develop and become more sensible towards injustice. Religions are almost always forces that (are used as a reason to) stand against change.

So a religion can't change as long as its holy text remains the same, except when it does change in response to culture change

We all "judge the world", even by closing your eyes and hiding from all negative that is done in the name of Islam that is still a judgement. All that's different is that you're dishonest to yourself, because you very well know that, if you were to open your eyes, you would see a truth that you don't like.

The rest is just Black and White thinking though. "We must have a positive view of Islam, or else we just take part in the spiral of hate!!!" is an utterly stupid concept. The first step of ANY positive change is to acknowledge that things currently aren't good.

Black and White thinking again. Not all Muslims share the same ideas and nobody should judge individual Muslims by what the average Muslims thinks. That does not change the fact that if 80% of all Muslims in the world say homosexuality is wrong I this will paint my view of overall Islam negatively.

I don't even know how you have managed to get ISIS back into the equation, it is not ISIS vs. the good Muslims, it's a high percentage of Muslims - most of which are not part of ISIS - who have bad views on homosexuality and other topics, ISIS is, at best, the faction that shines the spotlight on these issues.

The topic is about an attack that was perpetrated by ISIS and you're complaining about me putting ISIS back into the equation?

So you're not talking about associating ISIS' actions with Islam at all? You're just talking about homophobia in the Muslim world now?

Right. Well, about that other thing you're talking about. So thinking that Islam is not inherently or mostly evil and that people who disagree with this are not doing anyone any favours is apparently "black and white thinking." I'll walk you through the implications of what you seem to be saying (not that what you're saying is consistent from post to post; but I will try).

First off, do you think Islam is simply incompatible with Western society? I assume you will say no. So what does it take for Islam to be non-problematic? Presumably, you think that a liberal or moderate version of Islam is the answer. So, if that is the case, why the hell are you insisting on telling the moderates that ISIS really is made up of true Muslims like them and that Islam is kind of bad because there are many Muslims who are not moderate? One would think that if you want the liberal or moderate version of Islam to flourish, you'd get behind the moderates' assertions that Islam really is a peaceful religion that teaches love and not hate. So why would you give any credence to groups like ISIS' claims that they represent true Islam? Why would you even want to argue with the moderates who insist Islam isn't actually bad by telling them that a majority of Muslims believe bad things and therefore Islam is mostly bad?

You can believe whatever you want about Islam, but maybe you can also think about whether it's counter-productive to what you want to achieve? Unless you don't really care and just want to point fingers at people, in which case you better enjoy living with terrorist attacks in perpetuity, since you clearly do not want to work towards a viable solution.

 

[Ryika]

So a religion can't change as long as its holy text remains the same, except when it does change in response to culture change

I will now stop responding to you until you quote the part where I said that Religions can't change or until you apologize for misrepresenting my position because you didn't take the time to read what i actually wrote.

 

[brennan]

There's no contradiction here. A religious person's worldview is informed by both their religion and by other social and philosophical factors. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the religious factor can remain a constant, while the other factors change. Western Christians read the same Bible as their ancestors but the legal frsmeworks of their societies have moved on massively and in the main no longer permit Christians to interpret the text in the same way. Many Muslims are living in decidedly less mature societies and their red raw religion is catalysed by the local situation rather than inhibited.

 

[aelf]

I will now stop responding to you until you quote the part where I said that Religions can't change or until you apologize for misrepresenting my position because you didn't take the time to read what i actually wrote.

I asked you this:

Why are you making a distinction between a religion and an area that has shared cultural norms? What exactly is so different between the two that allows you to generalise about one but not the other?

And you responded with this:

Culture changes as a society changes, a holy text always stays the same. The same passages that have been used to justify stoning homosexuals 500 years ago can still be used to justify stoning homosexuals, especially if the holy text is claimed to be infallible. There is no such thing in Culture. (<- Although, to be fair, Ideologies come close to being a midground between the two)

I think it's pretty clear there that you're saying culture can change but religions can't, and that's why you're treating them differently.

I'm going to assume that you're have a problem communicating because English isn't your first language.

 

[brennan]

My, how polite.

 

[aelf]

It's good to see that people haven't changed. In lieu of saying "You're wrong", saying "You're rude" represents a sufficient response when you have no point to make.

 

[Ryika]

I asked you this:

And you responded with this:

I think it's pretty clear there that you're saying culture can change but religions can't, and that's why you're treating them differently.

I'm going to assume that you're have a problem communicating because English isn't your first language.

Nowhere in my post do I claim that religions cannot change, all I said is that religion is usually a force that pushes towards stagnation (because a holy text does not change and people need an external reason to reinterpret these texts or throw out the bad parts), while Culture changes dynamically and does not have any element that would stop people from letting go outdated, harmful ideas after they have realized the negative effects they have.

Everything else is just your misinterpretation of what is being said. I mean, you say it yourself: "I think it's pretty clear there that you're saying" - it's not what I said, it's just your false interpretation of what "hidden message" may be found in what I've actually said because you did not understand the argument I was making.

 

[brennan]

'You can't speak English' on the other hand is debate at its finest?

A finer display of hypocrisy is rarely to be seen.

 

[aelf]

Nowhere in my post do I claim that religions cannot change, all I said is that religion is usually a force that pushes towards stagnation (because a holy text does not change and people need an external reason to reinterpret these texts or throw out the bad parts), while Culture changes dynamically and does not have any element that would stop people from letting go outdated, harmful ideas after they have realized the negative effects they have.

Everything else is just your misinterpretation of what is being said. I mean, you say it yourself: "I think it's pretty clear there that you're saying" - it's not what I said, it's just your false interpretation of what "hidden message" may be found in what I've actually said because you did not understand the argument I was making.

Again, you said this...

Culture changes as a society changes, a holy text always stays the same. The same passages that have been used to justify stoning homosexuals 500 years ago can still be used to justify stoning homosexuals, especially if the holy text is claimed to be infallible.

...when I asked you about why you feel it's fairer to generalise about a religion than about a cultural grouping.

I mean, I thought you were answering my question directly (why wouldn't I?) and were making a case for why religion is different by setting it up as a contrast with the changeable nature of culture. Maybe that's where I did misinterpret your post and you were in fact not answering my question directly. In that case, again, I'd put it down to bad communication.

But that question is moot now since you've clarified that you'd actually judge a cultural grouping the same way if a majority of its members behave badly. So mind answering my question in #285 about how your position on how Islam should be viewed coheres with the goal of ending the cycle of violence?

'You can't speak English' on the other hand is debate at its finest?

A finer display of hypocrisy is rarely to be seen.

I have never claimed to be polite. But I did answer his post by citing some evidence. Apparently, you really can't make a distinction between a post that has no substance at all (yours) with a post that has something in it but is not worded kindly (mine).

 

[brennan]

The substance was in post 287. Rather than doubling down on your lack of civility, why don't you respond to the substance, or are you keen to appear insincere as well as rude?

 

[aelf]

I had no idea who you were responding to in that post. And reading it now it's already been answered anyway. His point wasn't invalid per se, but as I've said a few times now, I asked him a specific question and that was his response, leading me to assume that he was answering my question. And that response seemed contradictory after he said more stuff later.

And that doesn't change the fact that #289 had no substance whatsoever.

 

[Galgus]

The cultures Christianity parasitises have changed greatly. Christianity has not. Ref: the Westboro Baptist Church.

Really?

The vast, vast majority of Christians - even those who oppose homosexuality - despise the Westboro Baptist Church.

That is the intellectual equivalent of calling modern Germans Nazis - total BS.
____________________________

@Ryika

In a sense you could say that all societal changes are "cultural" on some level.

Changes in interpretation of holy texts can be both cultural and fundamentally religiously driven - like the the Protestant Reformation or the Stone-Campbell Movement.

I don't think it is as set in stone as you think, and I think it will shift considerably in the next 50 years.

 

[brennan]

Oh noes!!! Someone posted three words that were not of Earth shattering significance!!! Run for the hills!!!

I mean, seriously... what the hell kind of retort is that?

 

[chijohnaok]

Really?

The vast, vast majority of Christians - even those who oppose homosexuality - despise the Westboro Baptist Church.

That is the intellectual equivalent of calling modern Germans Nazis - total BS.
____________________________

Agreed.

There are probably not more than a few dozen people who belong to the Westboro Baptist Church. That hardly represents "Christianity"

 

[brennan]

No... but I didn't say it did now did I? I said that the fundamentals of Christianity remain the fundamentals of Christianity, and only one example of someone taking the written word of god to be literally the written word of god is required to demonstrate that fact. But actually there are millions of people who believe even the silliest details in their manual for living from 2000 years ago.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

France could take a page from the Cheney Doctrine-seize the opportunity to invade some country they have hated all along whether they are involved in any way or not. Almost a century since the last war with Germany, and there's always England...