The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

I think if you started lining up my policy preferences and/or ideals and support you'd find a general lack of overlap with Fox News or whatever you want as a proxy for conservatards.

I think the overlap with a white supremacist manifesto is more concerning.

 

[CiG]

That's about as disingenuous as saying you're concerned by the overlap of his manifesto with the beliefs of environmentalists. There's probably a lot of overlap with the views of moderate Muslims and the views of radical Islamists, or with you and the man who tried to assassinate GOP politicians at a baseball game.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm referring to a very specific comment he made.

 

[Dak]

Criminally violent people can make factual statements. This whackadoodle "facts aren't facts because violent criminals used them as justification for crimes" maneuver isn't accomplishing anything but patting yourself on the back for being a goodboy. Ted Kaczynski was a smart guy who made a few good points and had a list of facts. Doesn't mean the right response is to start a mail-bombing campaign, and the mail bombing campaign doesn't invalidate his accurate points/facts.

 

[Einherjar86]

Criminally violent people can make factual statements. This whackadoodle "facts aren't facts because violent criminals used them as justification for crimes" maneuver isn't accomplishing anything but patting yourself on the back for being a goodboy.

I'm not saying it isn't a fact because a violent criminal said it. I'm saying it's just not a fact, and that you keep touting it like it is is disturbing, especially given that it's the killer's reason for shooting Muslims.

Even if it weren't untrue, the claim that Islam is incompatible with Western modernity isn't even close to factual (i.e. it can't be a claim of facticity).

 

[The Ozzman]

Kiwifarms was housing a lot of the stuff related to the shooter (ie: chats, livestream archives, manifesto, etc) and NZ government asked him to provide registration records for his site and this was his response

 

[CiG]

Josh is the true definition of based. I'm actually watching this right now as I eat some dinner:

 

[Dak]

I'm not saying it isn't a fact because a violent criminal said it. I'm saying it's just not a fact, and that you keep touting it like it is is disturbing, especially given that it's the killer's reason for shooting Muslims.

Even if it weren't untrue, the claim that Islam is incompatible with Western modernity isn't even close to factual (i.e. it can't be a claim of facticity).

"Disturbed" because someone shares a thought with someone else. I guess I could understand that because people who promote or defend communism disturb me. Big difference in body count though.

There's a reason that if you look at the list of majority Muslim countries, few are places you'd feel comfortable in for even a short amount of time as a tourist, and even less if your wife were visiting with you (and that's after excluding Iraq, Libya, etc). Muslims in several majority Muslim countries are butchering Christians (and sexual minorities if we want tottalk about western tolerance) at the level of tens of thousands per year. Conversely, millions of Muslims living in countries where they are minorities do not experience the same level of danger. In fact, they are an outsized danger to their host countries and cause significant security expenses.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Disturbed" because someone shares a thought with someone else.

Yeah, that's why I'm disturbed.

There's a reason that if you look at the list of majority Muslim countries, few are places you'd feel comfortable in for even a short amount of time as a tourist, and even less if your wife were visiting with you (and that's after excluding Iraq, Libya, etc). Muslims in several majority Muslim countries are butchering Christians (and sexual minorities if we want tottalk about western tolerance) at the level of tens of thousands per year. Conversely, millions of Muslims living in countries where they are minorities do not experience the same level of danger. In fact, they are an outsized danger to their host countries and cause significant security expenses.

You assume that Muslim countries reflect "true Islam" (or truer Islam, at the very least), while Muslim immigrants reflect some kind of watered-down or Westernized version--i.e. not truly "devout" Islam. First, there's no way you can make that claim analytically without collapsing into fallacy. There's no pure Islam, there are only variations of it. It doesn't become less devout simply because it's not being practiced in a nation that follows Islamic Law.

Second, you deny history and context in favor of the present. Historically speaking, Islam has been more tolerant of other religions than Christianity has. It's only over the past century or so that Islamic countries have become the scapegoats of religious intolerance that we know today. For example, Muslims ruled India for a long time before WWI, and yet many Indians weren't practicing Muslims and weren't persecuted for it. The state of many Muslim countries today has to do with politically violent reactions to (yes, I'm going to say it) Western occupation and exploitation. The establishment of radical governments has less to do with the radicality of religion and more to do with political power and unrest.

Third, your comment implies that Western stability and tolerance is due (at least in part) to Christianity being a more tolerant religion than Islam. This is beyond true or untrue--it returns us to the quandary of my first point. Medieval Christianity wasn't more tolerant, but modern Christianity certainly appears to be. Which version is more devout? Most practicing Christians have been able to leave behind the demands of Leviticus; in this respect, it might appear more tolerant. But if we're speaking of devout religion, then we'd also have to say that Christianity is incompatible with Western modernity. All that is compatible is adapted, or adulterated, forms of religion; and as is clear from observing Islamic communities in the U.S. and elsewhere, adulterated Islam is easily compatible with Western modernity.

The tolerance of the West has nothing to do with Christianity being more tolerant than Islam, and the intolerance of Muslim countries has less to do with the details of radical scripture and more to do with the history of Western meddling and the hunger for political domination among local governments.

 

[CiG]

Historically speaking, Islam has been more tolerant of other religions than Christianity has. It's only over the past century or so that Islamic countries have become the scapegoats of religious intolerance that we know today. For example, Muslims ruled India for a long time before WWI, and yet many Indians weren't practicing Muslims and weren't persecuted for it.

From Wiki:

During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, Indian-origin religions have been persecuted by Muslim rulers. Muslim rulers massacred Hindus, Jains and Buddhists while attacking temples and monasteries, while also forcing them to convert including on the battlefield. Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule. Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history", consequently between the years 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of the Indian subcontinent decreased from 200 to 125 million.

 

[The Ozzman]

lmao

 

[Einherjar86]

From Wiki:

During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, Indian-origin religions have been persecuted by Muslim rulers. Muslim rulers massacred Hindus, Jains and Buddhists while attacking temples and monasteries, while also forcing them to convert including on the battlefield. Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule. Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history", consequently between the years 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of the Indian subcontinent decreased from 200 to 125 million.

Conquest is not the same thing as rule. The Muslim invasion of India was violent, and religious persecution was used as a tactic. Christians did the same damn thing. My point is that the Mughal Empire generally allowed free expression of religion, with the exception of some rulers who pursued more authoritarian measures.

lmao

Give it a rest genius.

 

[CiG]

Conquest is not the same thing as rule. The Muslim invasion of India was violent, and religious persecution was used as a tactic. Christians did the same damn thing. My point is that the Mughal Empire generally allowed free expression of religion, with the exception of some rulers who pursued more authoritarian measures.

Massacring populations into submission was probably a very effective way of ensuring relatively peaceful rule to follow.

Also on rule; Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule.

 

[Einherjar86]

Massacring populations into submission was probably a very effective way of ensuring relatively peaceful rule to follow.

Also on rule; Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule.

Yes I see, but pay attention to the dates being discussed. That's not the Mughal Empire. That's just someone on Wikipedia not being specific about verbiage.

EDIT: I'm not trying to defend strategies or suggest that Islamic expansion was a peaceful and desirable process. All I'm saying is that this accusation that Islam is somehow a less tolerant religion than Christianity is bullshit. It has very little to do with the religions themselves, and far more to do with the political histories of those religions. Suggesting that Islam (as such) is incompatible with modern Western values is just an unsupportable claim--far from an analysis or a fact.

 

[CiG]

Only now are you shifting the goalposts to a specific empire, before you just said; "Muslims ruled India for a long time before WWI, and yet many Indians weren't practicing Muslims and weren't persecuted for it."

 

[Einherjar86]

Only now are you shifting the goalposts to a specific empire, before you just said; "Muslims ruled India for a long time before WWI, and yet many Indians weren't practicing Muslims and weren't persecuted for it."

The Mughal Empire was a long time before WWI. I apologize for not specifying the exact historical period I was referring to, but it doesn't make what I said inaccurate.

 

[CiG]

Suggesting that Islam (as such) is incompatible with modern Western values is just an unsupportable claim--far from an analysis or a fact.

The Guardian:

Extensive polling conducted by ICM suggests that in most cases attitudes held by the British Muslim population do not broadly differ from those held by the population at large, but there are significant differences when it comes to some issues such as homosexuality and women’s rights.

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings were “extremely worrying” as they suggested on many issues Muslims were “nation within a nation”.

He called for a more “muscular approach” to integration.

The research suggests that 86% of British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain, which is higher than the national average of 83%. A large majority (91%) of the British Muslims who took part in the survey said they felt a strong sense of belonging in their local area, which is higher than the national average of 76%.

Of those questioned, 88% said Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78% said they would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws.

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.


CNN:

More than half of British Muslims (52%) think homosexuality should not be legal, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools, according to a new survey of British Muslims.
The results have sparked debate about the integration of the Britain's largest religious minority.

The survey, conducted with self-identified adult Muslims last year, found Muslim attitudes to be in line with mainstream public opinions on many topics. But significant differences emerged on issues relating to gender, sexuality, anti-Semitism and political or religious violence.

For example, the general public was markedly more liberal on issues related to homosexuality, with 11% of those surveyed saying homosexuality should not be legal, and 14% saying that it was not appropriate for gays and lesbians to teach in schools.

Responding to the poll on social media, writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik tweeted that he believed Britons of most faiths had become more liberal on issues such as homosexuality and women's rights over the past generation. But from his experience, "British Muslims, on the other hand, seem to have become more conservative."

 

[CiG]

The Mughal Empire was a long time before WWI. I apologize for not specifying the exact historical period I was referring to, but it doesn't make what I said inaccurate.

Yes but it wasn't the only Muslim rule. For example the rule of Sikandar Butshikan was extremely brutal and intolerant, and existed less than a mere hundred years before The Mughal Empire ruled.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes but it wasn't the only Muslim rule. For example the rule of Sikandar Butshikan was extremely brutal and intolerant, and existed less than a mere hundred years before The Mughal Empire ruled.

No it wasn't, and I also admitted that there were still Mughal emperors who implemented authoritarian policies of religious persecution. I'm not trying to say that Islamic rule has been entirely free of horrible acts against other religions prior to WWI. I'm saying that there have been some remarkable examples of large, highly influential periods of Islamic rule that were tolerant and even encouraging toward alternative religious beliefs. I'm asking how it's possible to square the claim that Islam is incompatible with modern Western values when Islamic rulers and periods of rule prior to the twentieth century apparently practiced values such as freedom of religion?

So again, my examples serve as objections to the notion that Islam is only one thing (i.e. radicalized twentieth-century Islam) and that it can't be practiced in an organized manner within modern value systems.

 

[CiG]

I'm asking how it's possible to square the claim that Islam is incompatible with modern Western values when Islamic rulers and periods of rule prior to the twentieth century apparently practiced values such as freedom of religion?

What of the polling data I referenced?

All I'm saying is that this accusation that Islam is somehow a less tolerant religion than Christianity is bullshit.

And your first attempt to reveal how bullshit it is will be to retreat to history? Bad move, especially because most people alive today who say Islam is the most intolerant religion mean it in the current sense. Yes, as all apologists of Islam are want to repeat ad nauseam, Christianity was also intolerant and violent and was party to many atrocities etc etc etc etc.

This is practically irrelevant to the comparison of modern Christianity to modern Islam. The supposed golden standard of a Muslim-majority country is Indonesia and here we can see many cases of Muslims persecuting homosexuals, atheists and Christians.

From Wiki:

In 2017, the Chinese Christian governor of Jakarta Basuki Tjahaja Purnama was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of blasphemy. LGBT issues have recently gained attention in Indonesia. While homosexuality is legal in most parts of the country, it is illegal in Aceh and South Sumatra. LGBT people and activists have regularly faced fierce opposition, intimidation, and discrimination, launched even by authorities.

Just for context, here's some information on Aceh:

Aceh is a religiously conservative territory and the only Indonesian province practicing Sharia law officially. There are ten indigenous ethnic groups in this region, the largest being the Acehnese people, accounting for approximately 80% to 90% of the region's population. Aceh is the place where the spread of Islam in Indonesia began, and was a key factor of the spread of Islam in Southeast Asia.

And here's some information on South Sumatra:

Beginning in the 16th century, Islam began to spread in the region, effectively replacing Hinduism and Buddhism as the dominant religion in the region.