The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

You keep making the same rhetorical move but at different scales. Easy to do with no skin in the game. If there's no "Islam in itself" how is there any "organized Islam in itself" or "radical fundamentalist Islam in itself."

...there isn't.

Your analysis is bankrupt in itself.

 

[Dak]

So why refer to made up things? If we've made up "Islam" every derivative is also made up so there's nothing to critique other than that it's all made up. Meanwhile, people chop off heads for reasons impervious to analysis.

 

[Einherjar86]

So why refer to made up things? If we've made up "Islam" every derivative is also made up so there's nothing to critique other than that it's all made up. Meanwhile, people chop off heads for reasons impervious to analysis.

By "made up," do you think I'm saying that Islam is like unicorns and Millennium Falcons? Do you actually think that's what I'm saying?

 

[CiG]

I'm not sure where this point got lost, but I agree--there is no Islam in itself, just like there's no Christianity in itself or Buddhism in itself. These are institutions subject to the pressures of history and culture.

You missed the bit where I said we need to treat Islam as it exists. Islamophiles bicycle around Islamic countries to prove that actually Islam is peaceful, and they end up beheaded on national television. Idealism vs realpolitik is really what's being discussed here when you get down to it.

This being the case, religions transform and evolve as their regional environments transform and evolve. The relative compatibility, as we can observe it, of Western Christianity with modern twentieth-century values has less to do with Christianity as a more tolerant/malleable religion than Islam than it does with its gradual exposure to Enlightenment values over the course of centuries. If you look at European history, we see Christianity grow less violent and more tolerant as advancements are made in science, philosophy, culture, etc.

This is a deeper question which can take us down a different but equally deep rabbit hole, but I think much of the reason Christianity and Christians themselves not only were moderated by advancements but took part in creating said advancements is because Christianity promotes truth-seeking and this value has also lead to much of its decline, because truth-seeking inevitably leads one away from faith-based views.

By contrast with Islam we see it regressing, we see minority moderators within the faith being oppressed, murdered or chased across the ocean to the west where they find refuge from their own brothers-in-faith. We see Muslims living in Britain where the environment should be moderating them like you say it has done with other religions actually becoming more fundamentalist, more regressive, more intolerant and by extension more intolerable.

What I see in the nations within a nation, within the west, is that when Muslims are around non-Muslims they become more moderate based on the data we have at hand (American Muslims for example) but when Muslims are almost exclusively around other Muslims (Britain, no-go zones in Europe) they actually radicalize and become problem populations who justify gangraping white and Sikh women on almost solely religious grounds. They also happily hide terror suspects from authorities.

I mean, not in a place like Zambia, where homosexuality is illegal and the government regularly overlooks violence against women. Again, it's less about religion and more about geopolitical history/context.

It's about all 3. You have no basis for regressing back towards homophobic violence without the religion in the first place. I'm no ally of Christianity and if Zambian Christians try to immigrate to the west in the thousands I'll be the first to oppose it and demand mitigation.

What about this polling data? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

What about it? It's rather predictable. We've already established here that there is no The Islam and so what we have to look at is how Islam exists in the real world and we have to base our policies on that, and can only change our policies once the situation changes.

Support for Sharia is highest in the countries we actually take people from and are having issues with, Pakistan for example, or places like Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco and pretty much all of sub-Saharan Africa. We aren't facing a mass immigration crisis from Turkey.

 

[Dak]

By "made up," do you think I'm saying that Islam is like unicorns and Millennium Falcons? Do you actually think that's what I'm saying?

You dance around it as such, yes. You know it's there, but have to bend over backwards to apologize it away by making up endless subunits while denying the primary unit because it's uncomfortable to acknowledge.

 

[Einherjar86]

You missed the bit where I said we need to treat Islam as it exists. Islamophiles bicycle around Islamic countries to prove that actually Islam is peaceful, and they end up beheaded on national television. Idealism vs realpolitik is really what's being discussed here when you get down to it.

That's not my argument though. I agree we need to treat it as it exists.

Honestly, I feel like we're not the ones disagreeing, although I may take issue with your phrasing and classifying of Christianity as "truth-seeking." I'm not sure how it promotes truth-seeking any more than Islam does.

My problem is really with this continuing discussion of Islam "in itself," which is what Dak has been pushing from the start.

You dance around it as such, yes.

So because Islam and Sharia law are the products of cultural dynamics and historical circumstances, they're as immaterial as unicorns?

 

[CiG]

That's not my argument though. I agree we need to treat it as it exists.

My argument is that, as it exists, it is incompatible with modern western values. I guess that means you agree, but would simply add a *temporarily incompatible caveat?

I may take issue with your phrasing and classifying of Christianity as "truth-seeking." I'm not sure how it promotes truth-seeking any more than Islam does.

Well, the fact that most (if not all?) secular nations with large and growing atheist/agnostic populations are all former Christian nations in terms of how they were ruled, or are still majority Christian nations even if they began as an attempt to separate church and state? There seems to be circumstantial evidence that Christian societies gradually red-pill themselves out of Christianity and especially Christian fundamentalism, and more and more are forced to make their religious views fit science rather than the reverse which was the case for most religion for most of human history.

My problem is really with this continuing discussion of Islam "in itself," which is what Dak has been pushing from the start.

I think actions define a person, and by extension a nation or a group or a religion or an ideology are similarly defined. You're approaching this like a theologian or philosopher which is fair enough but was that the original claim or was it a claim about how incompatible it is as it stands?

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

"Chris Hayes is what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country..."

 

[CiG]

"Chris Hayes is what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country..."

Rise of the mainstream doomsday cult.

Edit:

"We're not calling anyone names"

...few seconds later...

"People say; Tea Party of the left, and I find this phrasing very interesting because, the grounding of the Tea Party was xenophobia, the underpinnings of white supremacy..."

Contradicts herself within 2 seconds.

 

[Dak]

The word games that allow us to refute "in itself-ness" are valuable only insofar as they show we can play these games with words. This value was depleted many decades ago. Selective application at this point in history is useless except for obfuscation. There are no things in themselves. Fine. Ok. Can we move past this now and deal with all the "not in themselves" things?

 

[Einherjar86]

My argument is that, as it exists, it is incompatible with modern western values. I guess that means you agree, but would simply add a *temporarily incompatible caveat?

Specifically, I'd say that Islam as practiced in several officially Muslim nations is incompatible with post-Enlightenment values (I think this is a better term than modern Western values, so I'm going to keep using it).

Again, it's a matter of specifying context, region, geopolitical history, etc. I'm willing to say that Islam as practiced in certain regions is incompatible, but I'm not willing to say that Islam, or even devout Islam, is incompatible. There are devout Muslims all over the world who act in accordance with post-Enlightenment values, some even in Muslim majority nations.

Well, the fact that most (if not all?) secular nations with large and growing atheist/agnostic populations are all former Christian nations in terms of how they were ruled, or are still majority Christian nations even if they began as an attempt to separate church and state? There seems to be circumstantial evidence that Christian societies gradually red-pill themselves out of Christianity and especially Christian fundamentalism, and more and more are forced to make their religious views fit science rather than the reverse which was the case for most religion for most of human history.

I think there is so much more to this than the fact that these nations are "Christian"--specifically, that they began to shift away from Christianity at the same time they began exploring less autocratic governmental forms. We saw the same thing happening with Muslim countries in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries; and then Western nations decided that autocracies were better than democracies for diplomatic relations. Christianity is just as susceptible to such regression.

I think actions define a person, and by extension a nation or a group or a religion or an ideology are similarly defined. You're approaching this like a theologian or philosopher which is fair enough but was that the original claim or was it a claim about how incompatible it is as it stands?

This was the original claim:

The NZ shooter isn't even a fascist by his own manifesto; he was a weird commie/eco/weirdo who was able to recognize devout Muslims as not compatible with modern western values living.

The irony is that the shooter's actions were less compatible with "modern western values" than the Muslims he killed.

The word games that allow us to refute "in itself-ness" are valuable only insofar as they show we can play these games with words. This value was depleted many decades ago. Selective application at this point in history is useless except for obfuscation. There are no things in themselves. Fine. Ok. Can we move past this now and deal with all the "not in themselves" things?

You're the one who originally introduced the problem of "in itself-ness" and have been tortuously spinning in circles since the beginning of the conversation. First you insist that it's a "shit rhetorical maneuver" to insist there's no in-itself, implying possibly that there is...? Then you admit there is no in-itself--but can't we just move beyond this? But your original comment is steeped in "in-itself-ness." You suggested that "devout Muslims" aren't compatible with "modern western values." I'm sorry, but I don't know how to read that other than all devout Muslims are incompatible with post-Enlightenment values (which I think is what you mean). You give no qualifiers, no specifics. And what's more, the Muslims you appear to be immediately identifying (based on the context of your comment) are ones who were living compatibly in a Western(ized) country.

 

[Dak]

Specifically, I'd say that Islam as practiced in several officially Muslim nations is incompatible with post-Enlightenment values (I think this is a better term than modern Western values, so I'm going to keep using it).

Again, it's a matter of specifying context, region, geopolitical history, etc. I'm willing to say that Islam as practiced in certain regions is incompatible, but I'm not willing to say that Islam, or even devout Islam, is incompatible. There are devout Muslims all over the world who act in accordance with post-Enlightenment values, some even in Muslim majority nations.

I think there is so much more to this than the fact that these nations are "Christian"--specifically, that they began to shift away from Christianity at the same time they began exploring less autocratic governmental forms. We saw the same thing happening with Muslim countries in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries; and then Western nations decided that autocracies were better than democracies for diplomatic relations. Christianity is just as susceptible to such regression.

This was the original claim:

The irony is that the shooter's actions were less compatible with "modern western values" than the Muslims he killed.

You're the one who originally introduced the problem of "in itself-ness" and have been tortuously spinning in circles since the beginning of the conversation. First you insist that it's a "shit rhetorical maneuver" to insist there's no in-itself, implying possibly that there is...? Then you admit there is no in-itself--but can't we just move beyond this? But your original comment is steeped in "in-itself-ness." You suggested that "devout Muslims" aren't compatible with "modern western values." I'm sorry, but I don't know how to read that other than all devout Muslims are incompatible with post-Enlightenment values (which I think is what you mean). You give no qualifiers, no specifics. And what's more, the Muslims you appear to be immediately identifying (based on the context of your comment) are ones who were living compatibly in a Western(ized) country.

I wish I could separate these out but it all ties together (although I'm going to ignore the Chomskian sentence).

I'm completely in agreement that when we speak of, at a minimum, things like ideologies, these must be treated with by analysis of actions rather than abstracted belief. Most ideologies have guiding texts or figures which provide prescriptions for actions, and Islam is no outlier here. Therefore, it would seem that the difference in opinion is what qualifies someone as "devout" in their practice of Islam.....which would mean engaging in consistent actions which, in some way, shape, or form, somehow hews closest to what we must refer to as "Islam". Does this require there to be an "Islam in-itself?" Does it matter?

Secondly, one can both "act in accordance with post-Enlightenment values" (whatever those might be exactly) to a varying degree, and still ultimately be incompatible with them because of key points of departure. Let us use the NZ shooter as the perfect example. Shooting up a place of worship is a key point of departure, although up until that point in many ways he must have acted "in accordance with post-Enlightenment values." A separate legal code is incompatible with a long western tradition. This is even different from the Torah or Talmud (as an example of another set of prescriptive religious rules), as those have not generally been a point of conflict with secular legal codes. Sharia (even in it's various forms) is in conflict with them. I respect that Muslims have their own ways of preferred living, but there are a sufficient number of non-western countries for them to live in to exercise that wish.

 

[CiG]

Specifically, I'd say that Islam as practiced in several officially Muslim nations is incompatible with post-Enlightenment values (I think this is a better term than modern Western values, so I'm going to keep using it).

*Also the polling data on British Muslims.

Again, it's a matter of specifying context, region, geopolitical history, etc. I'm willing to say that Islam as practiced in certain regions is incompatible, but I'm not willing to say that Islam, or even devout Islam, is incompatible. There are devout Muslims all over the world who act in accordance with post-Enlightenment values, some even in Muslim majority nations.

Yeah I don't really agree, and the statistics Dak posted that you then re-posted because you seem to think it strengthens your point and not his actually shows that the vast majority of majority-Muslim countries have incompatible views on Sharia, homosexuality, women's rights etc. You're clinging to western idealism ironically enough, as well as treating the exception as if it debunks the rule.

I think there is so much more to this than the fact that these nations are "Christian"--specifically, that they began to shift away from Christianity at the same time they began exploring less autocratic governmental forms. We saw the same thing happening with Muslim countries in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries; and then Western nations decided that autocracies were better than democracies for diplomatic relations. Christianity is just as susceptible to such regression.

Reality doesn't really bear out your final claim here, but in the end I don't really care because I don't think it's useful to endlessly play whataboutism when it comes to Islam. Facts are that we don't have any issues in the west with Christian mass immigration leading to the kinds of problems we're discussing here.

The irony is that the shooter's actions were less compatible with "modern western values" than the Muslims he killed.

Good to know you don't think modern western values and bigoted terrorism are interchangeable. Hope your allies don't see you saying stuff like that, you white supremacist.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm completely in agreement that when we speak of, at a minimum, things like ideologies, these must be treated with by analysis of actions rather than abstracted belief. Most ideologies have guiding texts or figures which provide prescriptions for actions, and Islam is no outlier here. Therefore, it would seem that the difference in opinion is what qualifies someone as "devout" in their practice of Islam.....which would mean engaging in consistent actions which, in some way, shape, or form, somehow hews closest to what we must refer to as "Islam". Does this require there to be an "Islam in-itself?" Does it matter?

Devoutness isn't an empirical or concretely verifiable quality. You can't point to a Middle-Eastern cleric and say "That's devout" and point to a Muslim American family and say "That's not." They could both be devout in ways that satisfy the Quran. It comes down to interpretation. Devoutness doesn't mean a literalist interpretation of what's written in holy texts.

Secondly, one can both "act in accordance with post-Enlightenment values" (whatever those might be exactly) to a varying degree, and still ultimately be incompatible with them because of key points of departure. Let us use the NZ shooter as the perfect example. Shooting up a place of worship is a key point of departure, although up until that point in many ways he must have acted "in accordance with post-Enlightenment values."

Until that point, sure... maybe. I won't debate that. But the Muslims he targeted were acting in accordance post-Enlightenment values (which I guess I take to be synonymous with your "modern western values," although we haven't bothered to define either) and exhibited no "key points of departure."

This is a bit of a non-starter for me, since I don't see how "key points of departure" applies to Muslim families living peacefully in either Western or non-Western countries.

A separate legal code is incompatible with a long western tradition. This is even different from the Torah or Talmud (as an example of another set of prescriptive religious rules), as those have not generally been a point of conflict with secular legal codes. Sharia (even in it's various forms) is in conflict with them. I respect that Muslims have their own ways of preferred living, but there are a sufficient number of non-western countries for them to live in to exercise that wish.

What exactly is our "long western tradition"? Does it go back to the Diaspora, when courts executed people for behaviors that today are considered perfectly acceptable? Or does it go back to the mid-1000s and the Spanish Inquisition? Does it go back to the 1950s, when Alan Turing committed suicide to avoid being imprisoned for homosexuality in a predominantly Christian country?

It may be true that Judeo-Christian religious codes of conduct were generally compatible with corresponding legal codes, but those legal codes don't really reflect the tolerance that we're attributing to the West today. So in that sense, "post-Enlightenment" doesn't work for us either. It sounds like you're taking a snapshot of the West as it exists today and projecting it back onto a centuries-old "western tradition."

Yeah I don't really agree, and the statistics Dak posted that you then re-posted because you seem to think it strengthens your point and not his actually shows that the vast majority of majority-Muslim countries have incompatible views on Sharia, homosexuality, women's rights etc. You're clinging to western idealism ironically enough, as well as treating the exception as if it debunks the rule.

Again, my point is that when religion evolves alongside democratic institutions you don't see the same support for Sharia, as is the case in Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.

It strengthens my point because the data shows that Muslim-majority countries are compatible with values of tolerance and nonviolence if they've developed a functioning governmental apparatus that cultivates these ideals. It just so happens that such apparatuses have been prevented from functioning in many of those Muslim-majority countries by Western nations.

I'm not sure how else to say it.

Good to know you don't think modern western values and bigoted terrorism are interchangeable. Hope your allies don't see you saying stuff like that, you white supremacist.

I don't think my "allies" would object to me condemning the actions of Brenton Tarrant, Dylan Roof, Nikolas Cruz, Wade Michael Page, Jerad and Amanda Miller, etc.

 

[CiG]

Again, my point is that when religion evolves alongside democratic institutions you don't see the same support for Sharia, as is the case in Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.

But not the case in Britain...?

It strengthens my point because the data shows that Muslim-majority countries are compatible with values of tolerance and nonviolence if they've developed a functioning governmental apparatus that cultivates these ideals. It just so happens that such apparatuses have been prevented from functioning in many of those Muslim-majority countries by Western nations.

But not in Indonesia...?

I don't think my "allies" would object to me condemning the actions of Brenton Tarrant, Dylan Roof, Nikolas Cruz, Wade Michael Page, Jerad and Amanda Miller, etc.

That's not what I said.

 

[Einherjar86]

But not the case in Britain...?

But not in Indonesia...?

If the point is that there are exceptions and they matter, then I absolutely agree. There are exceptions, and they matter.

That's not what I said.

I know. I was expanding your notion of "bigoted terrorism," which you clearly meant to denote only nonwhite terrorists (hence "white supremacist"), to include bigoted terrorists who are also white supremacists.

 

[CiG]

I know. I was expanding your notion of "bigoted terrorism," which you clearly meant to denote only nonwhite terrorists (hence "white supremacist"), to include bigoted terrorists who are also white supremacists.

No I meant "bigoted terrorism" to mean all white terrorists acting in bigoted ways towards Muslims, black people, and so on.

My point was tongue-in-cheek obviously but I was implying that many on the left would rebuttal descriptions of modern western values with terms like racism, colonialism, homophobia, sexism, white supremacy etc, and it's good to know that you don't agree with them, because you said the Christchurch terrorist is incompatible with modern western values.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is one reason why defining our terms is necessary.

I've been understanding "modern western values" and "post-Enlightenment" values to refer generally to facets of liberalism. But of course, classical liberalism allowed for the existence of slavery, which raises some problems.

I do see conflicts between American (and European) liberalism and the NZ shooter's actions, though. As I think most academics would, even if they acknowledge contradictions within liberalism (as I do).

 

[CiG]

I don't think classical liberalism allowed for the existence of slavery, as slavery has been a human constant since time immemorial. Society simply hadn't yet caught up racially with what classically liberal documents like the bill of rights were trying to do. "All men are created equal'" doesn't have the same power when white men don't consider black men to be men, if you get what I mean.

 

[Einherjar86]

I do get what you mean. This assumes there's only one way to define "man." The founding documents aren't transparent in their terminology or in their phrasing. They require interpretation, and people interpret them according to their predilections. I say that liberalism allowed for slavery because it made no effort to define what "man" meant.

It's easy to think language is transparent because it's obvious to us how it functions. But we can't assume our definitions hold across space and time.