The Political & Philosophy Thread

[rms]

The discrepancy is on the terrorists' part as much as on yours, though; in other words, you're right to say that they are upset due to larger geopolitical issues, and it's these issues that I would suggest focusing on. This is not to absolve them of their criminality, but to understand their criminality as geopolitically motivated, not primarily religiously motivated.

Geopolitically, most Muslims (middle east Muslims, maybe N. Africa too, idk) tend to put themselves as a religious ethnicity rather than a nation state. Their religion has been shamed.globally if not regionally. They identify with that frustration. I would also say Islam has assumed the 'counter' religion to Christianity. If it's a large motive instead of the motive, how does that differ with the distinction?

it isn't the one that a majority of Muslims living today identify with or condone.

Likely, but it's still a 'sect' of Islam. Just because the majority may not approve of it does not diminish its credibility nor effect

we assume that the entire history and culture of Islam is motivated by an implicit drive to exorcise the world of all non-Muslims.

Not sure if the 'we' here is the public perception or GMD, but this is quite a leap I don't think anyone has made. Do I think those that commit and support these terror actions want this, though? The Muslim dominance globally and especially over the West? Yes.

but without rationalizing violent behavior to promote that religion.

Don't understand the connection here to the first clause

 

[Einherjar86]

Geopolitically, most Muslims (middle east Muslims, maybe N. Africa too, idk) tend to put themselves as a religious ethnicity rather than a nation state. Their religion has been shamed.globally if not regionally. They identify with that frustration. I would also say Islam has assumed the 'counter' religion to Christianity. If it's a large motive instead of the motive, how does that differ with the distinction?

I think the distinction lies in the fact that, as you suggest, all Muslims potentially face the trouble of belonging to a group so adamantly maligned by many Western nations; and yet the vast majority of them seem to deal with this defamation without resorting to violence.

It would seem to me that the motivation for violence lies not in the religious beliefs themselves, but elsewhere.

Likely, but it's still a 'sect' of Islam. Just because the majority may not approve of it does not diminish its credibility nor effect

Why not? That majority doesn't consider it to be a legitimate religious sect. Why are we skeptical of religious leaders who deny the allegiance of extremists, and not terrorists who proclaim their allegiance?

Not sure if the 'we' here is the public perception or GMD, but this is quite a leap I don't think anyone has made. Do I think those that commit and support these terror actions want this, though? The Muslim dominance globally and especially over the West? Yes.

They want dominance, sure; but the very efforts to impose dominance set them at odds with the majority of Muslims.

You may not have intentionally made this leap, and you may not consider it to be a position you hold. I'm simply saying that the rhetoric of "radical Islamic terror" promotes a false belief in the implicit violence of Islamism.

Don't understand the connection here to the first clause

I'm saying that a vast majority of Muslims identify with the Islamic religion without promoting violence in order to impose it on others. So when we rhetorically associate terrorist violence with Islam, we're insinuating that Islam and terrorism share a necessary relationship rather than an incidental one.

 

[rms]

It would seem to me that the motivation for violence lies not in the religious beliefs themselves, but elsewhere.

Just don't get the separation or exclusion of religion from the depiction. Muslims had a strong position, globally, up until WW1. They've been at the mercy of Christian-Westerners since then. They are mad because of that, they are mad because of the economic and social consequences of having a capitalist, 'free', christian money invade their country. They are mad because they are 'poor', loss of sovereignty, being a muslim in a christian dominated global system etc.

Why not? That majority doesn't consider it to be a legitimate religious sect

Isn't there that true Scotsman fallacy here? Colorado abortion hater is just as much as a terrorist as a single muslim terrorist, it's just that Muslims have much higher goals, that are said at the very least in public (if you believe alt-right christians are trying to take over etc) and are backed by organizations and global positions.

Why are we skeptical of religious leaders who deny the allegiance of extremists

Who is?

I'm saying that a vast majority of Muslims identify with the Islamic religion without promoting violence in order to impose it on others. So when we rhetorically associate terrorist violence with Islam, we're insinuating that Islam and terrorism share a necessary relationship rather than an incidental one.

Sure, buzzwords created for a political purpose. Not saying the current usage is the best or correct way to phrase these terrorists, but they are terrorists and they are motivated by and for religion.

This isn't my opinion on the issue anyways, maybe Dak likes this policy or CIG, idk. It's hilarious how often we care about the sub 1% of issues constantly

 

[Einherjar86]

Just don't get the separation or exclusion of religion from the depiction. Muslims had a strong position, globally, up until WW1. They've been at the mercy of Christian-Westerners since then. They are mad because of that, they are mad because of the economic and social consequences of having a capitalist, 'free', christian money invade their country. They are mad because they are 'poor', loss of sovereignty, being a muslim in a christian dominated global system etc.

Including it is a rhetorical gesture. The importance lies in the criminal activity, not in the Islamic element.

Isn't there that true Scotsman fallacy here? Colorado abortion hater is just as much as a terrorist as a single muslim terrorist, it's just that Muslims have much higher goals, that are said at the very least in public (if you believe alt-right christians are trying to take over etc) and are backed by organizations and global positions.

I don't think so. I'm not trying to make any absolute statement about Islam, I'm only suggesting that it's a distraction to emphasize the importance of Islam in our assessment of terrorism.

Who is?

Well, you are. At least, that's what it seems like to me when you insist that ISIS is still a "credible" sect of Islam, while many of its theologians and experts insist that ISIS is not an accurate or legitimate reflection of Islam.

Sure, buzzwords created for a political purpose. Not saying the current usage is the best or correct way to phrase these terrorists, but they are terrorists and they are motivated by and for religion.

If that's the basis for including "Islamic" in our description, then you could justify including any motivator for any crime whatsoever in the description of the criminal. None of that means that the criminal act is integral to the motivating factors, though.

 

[Dak]

it isn't the one that a majority of Muslims living today identify with or condone. ISIS terrorists, if we want to speculate on intention, misidentify a religion as their motivating cause, when in fact that same religion inspires no such motivation in most of its supplicants.

Does it need to be a majority before there's concern? From that perspective we could completely rule out the entire field of "public health".

So when we say that "religion is their end goal," we assume that the entire history and culture of Islam is motivated by an implicit drive to exorcise the world of all non-Muslims.

That is the history and intent of Islam and Christianity, at a minimum.

 

[Einherjar86]

Does it need to be a majority before there's concern? From that perspective we could completely rule out the entire field of "public health".

It is a concern; but it doesn't need to be a religious concern.

That is the history and intent of Islam and Christianity, at a minimum.

This isn't accurate, at least anymore. Religious commitment can change, and it's very different today than it was in the late Middle Ages.

 

[Dak]

It is a concern; but it doesn't need to be a religious concern.

Why would religion not play a part?

This isn't accurate, at least anymore. Religious commitment can change, and it's very different today than it was in the late Middle Ages.

So what you're saying is that you believe if Muslims were to achieve a majority in a country, there would be no attempt to use political institutions to enact laws that hew to the Quran where there is a difference between the Quran and "secular progressive values/laws"?

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Including it is a rhetorical gesture. The importance lies in the criminal activity, not in the Islamic element.



I don't think so. I'm not trying to make any absolute statement about Islam, I'm only suggesting that it's a distraction to emphasize the importance of Islam in our assessment of terrorism.



Well, you are. At least, that's what it seems like to me when you insist that ISIS is still a "credible" sect of Islam, while many of its theologians and experts insist that ISIS is not an accurate or legitimate reflection of Islam.



If that's the basis for including "Islamic" in our description, then you could justify including any motivator for any crime whatsoever in the description of the criminal. None of that means that the criminal act is integral to the motivating factors, though.

dude where the fuck have you been and why the fuck don't you post about music anymore??

 

[CiG]

This debate really got away from me, never blink in here.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why would religion not play a part?

I'm sorry, I've just spent almost the entire last page and most of this page talking about this. I'm not going to rewrite all that.

So what you're saying is that you believe if Muslims were to achieve a majority in a country, there would be no attempt to use political institutions to enact laws that hew to the Quran where there is a difference between the Quran and "secular progressive values/laws"?

There are already countries with an Islamic majority whose laws are primarily secular. That's not a hypothetical scenario.

There will always be factions or groups whose interpretations call for extreme religious laws, just as there are in America. If Westboro Baptists gained a majority, do you think they would be okay with secular law?

My point is that Westboro Baptists, like ISIS extremists, are a minority, and are overwhelmingly disowned by those in the majority. It doesn't make sense to say that Christianity is, at its core, misogynistic and homophobic just because WBC protesters stand out in the street calling for the damnation of feminists and gays.

dude where the fuck have you been and why the fuck don't you post about music anymore??

Haha, hey man. My work life has intensified lately, leaving little room for exploring new music and even for really listening closely to new bands much at all. So I've kinda just been in a rut, listening to the same bands, and haven't really had anything much to contribute on that front. I hope to get back to my old listening habits eventually.

 

[rms]

Well, you are. At least, that's what it seems like to me when you insist that ISIS is still a "credible" sect of Islam, while many of its theologians and experts insist that ISIS is not an accurate or legitimate reflection of Islam.

seems like you have a high standard for what is deemed a religion or 'proper' use/practice of said religion

My point is that Westboro Baptists, like ISIS extremists, are a minority, and are overwhelmingly disowned by those in the majority. It doesn't make sense to say that Christianity is, at its core, misogynistic and homophobic just because WBC protesters stand out in the street calling for the damnation of feminists and gays.

But Christianity is at its core against gays and the idea of a 21st century woman?

 

[arg]

so many words and mental gymnastics. who gives a shit?

extreme vetting on muslims from terrorist lands and ban as necessary. monitor suspicious muslims and deport if verifiable terrorist activity found. shut down mosques that preach hate. punish those who protect terrorists. ban islam from schools and public places.

law and order motherfuckers. President Trump is here.

 

[Einherjar86]

seems like you have a high standard for what is deemed a religion or 'proper' use/practice of said religion

Seriously? The arguments of theologians and the majority of a religion's membership is a "high standard"?

I've agreed with many on this forum that identity politics is a misguided appeal to metaphysics and that ultimately identity is an obligatory social phenomenon, not a selective choice. Why now are we so adamant that ISIS terrorists are Muslims simply because they say they are, when in fact most Muslims reject their beliefs and practices?

According to this logic, it doesn't matter that Rachel Dolezal isn't a black person; her identity is black because that's what she chooses. Of course I don't buy this one bit, which is also why I think it's pointless and dangerous to appeal to the rhetorical propaganda of "radical Islamic terrorism." Let's just call it terrorism, since that's what it is. I don't see the issue here, seriously.

But Christianity is at its core against gays and the idea of a 21st century woman?

The Bible is a literary text, and subject to countless interpretations. It has no "core," same as the Koran.

Modernized religions are compatible with secular laws because they've evolved along with modern societies. There are absolutely still those who cry out against many aspects of modernity, but it's impossible to logically associate these positions with some kind of fundamental "true" religious practice.

I simply do not see why the word "Islam" needs to be associated with "terrorism" or "radical terror." Terrorism is identifiable according to its geographical, national, economic, and geopolitical associations. We don't need to shove "Islamic" in there to make ourselves aware of the threat.

 

[EternalMetal]

EDIT: @EternalMetal

I think we're actually mostly in agreement. I know that there are appeals to religion and religious motivation among ISIS members and comparable groups. I simply do not believe that their appeals to Islam justify widespread targeting of Muslims; this is an incidental association and not a necessary one, the same way that any Christian criminal's Christianity is also an incidental association.

Many on the conservative and Christian right want to mobilize political action against Muslims based on a necessary association between terrorism and Islam.

If we werent at war, I would agree with you entirely. However I just saw in the news that the Trump administration is pondering a Muslim registry, which imo is unconstitutional to those who are already Muslim-Americans. My previous opinions apply to immigrants only - those who are already citizens should be considered protected by the constitution.

You may not have intentionally made this leap, and you may not consider it to be a position you hold. I'm simply saying that the rhetoric of "radical Islamic terror" promotes a false belief in the implicit violence of Islamism.

So how should it be defined? I dont care if people take it the wrong way, it is what it is. Radical Christian terrorists bomb abortion clinics. The key term here is 'radical'. These are religiously motivated people, regardless of their affiliation with the majority.

I'm saying that a vast majority of Muslims identify with the Islamic religion without promoting violence in order to impose it on others. So when we rhetorically associate terrorist violence with Islam, we're insinuating that Islam and terrorism share a necessary relationship rather than an incidental one.

So lets just ignore a major global problem in order to sympathize with the robotic masses. What does this do other than attempting to ignore the widespread atrocities committed by a religious extremist group? ISIS is powerful enough to be successful in terrorizing the general public, but ignoring the fact that this group doesnt play by the rules of war is more dangerous than it is productive.

so many words and mental gymnastics. who gives a shit?

extreme vetting on muslims from terrorist lands and ban as necessary. monitor suspicious muslims and deport if verifiable terrorist activity found. shut down mosques that preach hate. punish those who protect terrorists. ban islam from schools and public places.

No. Islam should not be shunned or banned from anywhere, as this wont help prevent the organization of terrorists but promote hate directed at innocent people. Im also a little suspicious as to how you propose to monitor Muslim-Americans who have already successfully immigrated without impinging on their freedoms. The father of the guy who shot up the gay club in Florida should never have been allowed to immigrate, but it has been proven that he wasnt directed affiliated with ISIS (though undoubtedly motivated by his father's views among other things). Getting rid of those already here with dangerous views is probably impractical, but preventing further ISIS infiltration is a matter of immigrant screening and can be effective.

Though given Trump's potential staff, I see things shifting more towards arg's view/conservative policies more than those that allow for the justice of Muslim-American citizens. Personally I would like to avoid another atrocity on par with 9/11 or even the Paris attack, and attempting to do so at the expense of a minority class may be responsible. Of course there wont be proof of a diverted attack, which inevitably would be supporting of leftist ideals. Personally I would rather not exploit the lives of Muslim-Americans, but conservative paranoia and scrutiny may be the answer to preventing the next big ISIS attack on America. Consider me on the fence at the current moment, however non-committal it may seem.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

.

 

[rms]

Seriously? The arguments of theologians and the majority of a religion's membership is a "high standard"?

Should have said higher standard, but yes, it's higher than mine.

I've agreed with many on this forum that identity politics is a misguided appeal to metaphysics and that ultimately identity is an obligatory social phenomenon, not a selective choice. Why now are we so adamant that ISIS terrorists are Muslims simply because they say they are, when in fact most Muslims reject their beliefs and practices?

Just because it's a perverted and radical interpretation of said text does not disqualify ISIS being a Muslim group that uses terrorist tactics to achieve their geopolitical goals.

We are calling it terrorism, it's clear to me that ISIS is a Muslim terrorist group and you could say the Colorado abortion guy is a christian terrorist. I don't see an inconsistency in my line of thinking and I think you are more concerned with how the masses perceive the statement rather than it being wrong or incorrect.

The Bible is a literary text, and subject to countless interpretations. It has no "core," same as the Koran.

Has the Bible ever been used as an interpretation for gays and/or the idea of a 21st century woman?

I simply do not see why the word "Islam" needs to be associated with "terrorism" or "radical terror." Terrorism is identifiable according to its geographical, national, economic, and geopolitical associations. We don't need to shove "Islamic" in there to make ourselves aware of the threat.

Need to be? Doesn't seem to be the point here. Is it, is what i'm interested in. But it seems you have conceded this and not much else to be said

 

[Einherjar86]

I see a difference between a "Christian terrorist," or a "Muslim terrorist," and a terrorist who happens to be Christian, or Muslim.

If I appear conceded, it's only because you've been asking questions and I've been answering them. You haven't really offered any alternative or anything substantive in reply. And yes, to your question about the Bible; significant groups of Christians are openly tolerant of homosexuality by appealing to sections of the Bible other than the Book of Leviticus.

I feel like we're nearing the end of this conversation.

@EternalMetal - I disagree with you on the unimportance of language, but this is too long of a conversation already. I take your point about Muslims already here, although I would also suggest that immigration policies shouldn't target Muslims because of their religion. It should target immigrants due to a combination of determining factors. Religion shouldn't be the sole determining factor, i.e. an absolute targeting of all those who identify as Muslim. That's my stance.

Oh yes, because I'm soooo interested in hearing some sophist ramble on about how they aren't a credible sect of Islam when much of what ISIS does is advocated in the Quran. You know, forcibly converting those of other religions to Islam, killing those who don't convert, killing atheists, killing gay people unless they repent (how progressive of them ), indoctrinating young men to do their bidding, dying in combat (i.e. suicide bombing) as a way to cleanse themselves of all sin, etc., etc., etc.

I'm just going to be a dick and say that while the left is responsible for ignoring large numbers of individuals beyond the purview of academia, it's attitudes like this that make me think it's better to ignore them than try and talk to them. Because if education and erudition automatically means "sophist," then what point is there in trying to talk to you?

Listen, there are things about Islam that truly make it the worst of the three Abrahamic religions, especially when you take culture and history into account. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam hasn't had its reformation. Believe me, they tried with Ataturk, Jinnah, Nasser and others but very little of the Islamic world and the Middle East actually remains to hold to their ideals.

Also, your comparison of religion to heavy metal or video games is one of the most egregious comparisons I've ever heard. Utterly ridiculous.

If you bothered to read more closely, you may have noticed that I was comparing crimes, not religion and heavy metal. I was asking about crimes, sometimes comparable crimes - murders, arsons, assault, etc. - and noting the tendency (or lack thereof) to acknowledge admissions of intent or purpose.

Try honoring that Moorcock quote in your signature.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

@Einherjar86 Love how you conveniently ignored the reason why I considered it to be sophistry.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Koran also advocates a lot of ideas that are in contradiction to those practices, just as the Bible does.

 

[Dak]

Muhammad and his immediate successors engaged in state instantiation and military conquest. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world and his disciples told converts to obey the existing political structure where it didn't directly conflict. Not the best parallel when we look at founder behaviors as a template for interpretation of conflicting passages.