Condemning Islamic Culture

[Mr Manifesto]

That's the same bombing as before. It was six and a half years ago. I suppose you deserve technical points for finding an example “within the last decade”, but it's still not current events.

Jocko wanted one within the last decade, I gave him one within the last decade. If he wants to shift the goalposts from there, that's up to him, not you.

If you want a more recent terrorist attack, I can't give you one off the top of my head, but I can give you a pretty recent terrorist attempt, and it didn't involve Muslims.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Jocko wanted one within the last decade, I gave him one within the last decade. If he wants to shift the goalposts from there, that's up to him, not you.

So do you want to participate in the discussion or score points on Jocko?

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto If you want a more recent terrorist attack, I can't give you one off the top of my head, but I can give you a pretty recent terrorist attempt, and it didn't involve Muslims.

Does the existance of a non-Muslim terrorist attack prove we don't need to worry about Islamic terrorism?

 

[evildave]

Red herring?

Really, where has there been such an assualt in the last decade? Honestly, let's see this little myth substantiated or dispensed with.

I guess the 'Army of God' wouldn't ring any bells for you, then?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0027.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

 

[evildave]

The sad thing here is you're not joking. You really do see this as equivalent.

And it is, on an individual level. An abortion bombing is an act of terrorism. On a moral level, it is approximately equivalent to grabbing someone off the street and beheading them. It's less random, perhaps, and without the videotaped gloating, but murder is murder.

But when we had abortion bombings, we responded to them with urgency. As a society, we took action. We condemned these actions for the acts of barbarity they were, we openly talked about the religious motivations of these criminals, representatives of the Christian community condemned these murders without qualification. Nobody tried to silence us by calling us “bigots” or claiming we were smearing all Christianity.

Today, it's been years since the last abortion clinic bombing. There are still radicals out there, but for the most part they are now content to push their agenda through normal peaceful political activism. This is as it should be.

Christian abortion bombings are no longer urgent. It's been a long time since it's happened. Now the urgency is on Islamic terrorism.

We have a better police force.

And here's one from this year.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/antiabortion_violence_040122-1.html

Someone asks for a case of domestic terrorism by Christians in modern times, as if it were unheard of, or impossible. That's two examples now. Of course this second example is just calling for more terrorism.

Of course we could also put forward the Branch Davidians, who were raided because the government thought they might be stockpiling explosives. Mostly they got themselves slaughtered.

Jonestown, well they only killed themselves (well after those congressmen), so who cares about those Christians? And they went to a foreign country to do it, so it hardly counts.

Of course, watch out for elements of the 'Christian Identity Movement', they're mostly bark so far, but completely NUTS.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm

 

[TragicMonkey]

Probably not on this forum, but in general? What is a civil rights movement if it isn't people pointing out the flaws in a culture and creating pressure to change?

The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. You might succeed in getting a few changes made by force, but that will just drive it underground and generate an amazing amount of resentment. And sooner or later they'll slide back to whatever they were before, or even worse.

So while I could sit in judgment on any culture and register my approval or disapproval, it simply doesn't matter. There's nothing I can do about it. I can protest and agitate for changes in my own culture, but not other peoples'. It's up to them to change their own culture. If another country lives a certain way it's because they want to--if they didn't, they'd change it themselves.

And I think that's what will happen in the specific case of the Islamic countries. There are backwards elements, yes (we have our own), and forward elements, and status quo supporters. Because the backwards elements are taking the route of terrorism and warfare, they're getting themselves killed off. Sooner or later they'll run out of religious maniacs, while the continuing violence creates a greater pull toward reform for the rest of the society. I'm optimistic because I think that secularism works better than religion in creating and maintaining civilization. Sooner or later everyone will catch on. It's simply a better way of life.

And it should be pointed out that a strong Islam doesn't necessarily mean backwards countries--after all, America is majorly Christian, and we have all sorts of religious crazies in office, while still being pretty modern and stuff. (Although I'm sure I'd prefer less Christianity all over the place, I don't believe it's possible for the US to turn into a real theocracy Handmaid's Tale style.) I can see the Islamic nations staying religious while becoming more modern--the trick is to keep the religion in its place. And that's an achievement they'll have to decide for themselves, because commanding them to turn secular simply won't work.

 

[CBL4]

The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work.

I think that there is merit in what you say but it is not an absolute - postwar Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples.

Their are several problems that we (liberal democrats) face in reforming Islam. We are seen,accurately, as supporting the bad regimes in several countries. This does not make us appear to good examples to follow. We need to push our putative allies into reform. I would love to say we should abandon countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but I cannot see this being good.

Second, the most obvious opponents to the current tyrants are the religious extremists. This gives them automatic credibility.

Third, the religious extremists lead charities which are much more effective at easing poverty than the current regimes, the west and the NGOs. I think we need to fund secular NGOs to a larger degree.

Fourth, secular democracies have a tendency to backslide to religion especially when there are bad goverments or crisises of one sort or another . This is true in Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Turkey but also in other countries such as India. You can also see it to a lesser degree in the US and western Europe.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think that there is merit in what you say but it is not an absolute - postwar Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples.

Actually, there was quite a lot of dissent in Japan during the war. They closed down some universities, and the police were charged with controlling "dangerous thoughts" among the populace. Unfortunately, the current of opposition was kept firmly under control by the tyrants.

 

[CBL4]

EvilDave,

You can give numerous examples of non-Islamic terrorists but it is clear that the majority of terrorist death are due to Islamic terrorists. To make the point clear, the deadliest attack on British citizens was not by the IRA but by Al Qaeda. The deadlies attack on Spaniards was not by the ETA but by Al Qaeda. The European homegrown terrorist do not compare.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

To make the point clear, the deadliest attack on British citizens was not by the IRA but by Al Qaeda. The deadlies attack on Spaniards was not by the ETA but by Al Qaeda. The European homegrown terrorist do not compare.

I have perfect faith that our own terrorists will step up to the challenge and out-do the Muslims. Nothing like competition to inspire the creative flow.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Actually, there was quite a lot of dissent in Japan during the war.

There is always dissent against tyranny but while the war was going well, the populace in Japan and Germany was generally supportive of their governments. Democracy was new to Japan and undeification of the emperor was enforced from the outside.

CBL

 

[TragicMonkey]

Democracy was new to Japan and undeification of the emperor was enforced from the outside.

I love "undeification".

 

[Tony]

I have perfect faith that our own terrorists will step up to the challenge and out-do the Muslims.

They'll have a lot of work and an uphill battle to overcome before that day will happen. I seriously doubt such a scenario will play out in our lifetimes. No domestic terrorists in the US come close to the sophistication of the global islamists.

 

[TragicMonkey]

They'll have a lot of work and an uphill battle to overcome before that day will happen. I seriously doubt such a scenario will play out in our lifetimes. No domestic terrorists in the US come close to the sophistication of the global islamists.

There are two reasons why the Islamic style of terrorist is more dangerous, and that's a) they don't mind being killed on the job, and b) they have a much broader range of target --"The West", rather than a single country or government. I don't think it's necessarily that they're more sophisticated, it's just that they're more dedicated to their cause. Crazier, if you will.

Although I would attribute much of their success to practical experience --unlike the IRA, ETA, or Shining Path, they don't have periodic truces or talks with governments to slow them down. They have nothing else to do with their time, and don't really expect anyone to concede anything. They just want the opposition dead, and would go on no matter what the rest of the world did to try to accommodate their demands.

 

[Beerina]

Wouldn't it be funny if they said the same thing about us?

Actually, a few hundred years ago, that was true of Europe, with various theocracies in charge, or the ruling elite basically melded with them as authority for power.

The typical Islamic country is no worse off than the typical Christian one, before Western philosophy of freedom turned Christianity into just another harmless lifestyle choice a free person might make.

It may take a few hundred years, but the Islamic world will go that way, too. You just may not see it in your lifetime.

 

[CBL4]

Most of the posts are comparing Islam to Christianity but Christian countries are not the only one that promote freedom. Animist, Jewish, Hindhi and Buddhist countries can be free (Benin, Botswana, Israel, India, Mongolia, Japan, Taiwan, etc).

Islamic states are not except Mali and Senegal.

CBL

 

[evildave]

Except.

And at one point western nations were all run by royals except.

The fact that there are free followers of Islam belies the notion that it's 'Islam' that's the primary cause of the suffering. The texts of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion can be used to justify any old claim of 'necessity' or 'legitimacy', bad or good.

 

[epepke]

The difference between a civil rights movement and this thread is that a civil rights movement is pressure to change created from within a given culture, not imposed from outside. I've been thinking about this whole thing, and my opinion is that you can't change other people's cultures. It just doesn't work. You might succeed in getting a few changes made by force, but that will just drive it underground and generate an amazing amount of resentment. And sooner or later they'll slide back to whatever they were before, or even worse.

That's a good point. However, one still faces the problem of subcultures. Say, an enclave of people in Dearborne, Michigan or some place.

So while I could sit in judgment on any culture and register my approval or disapproval, it simply doesn't matter. There's nothing I can do about it. I can protest and agitate for changes in my own culture, but not other peoples'.

I disagree. There is considerable value in doing this, and it's because what I see a lot are extreme examples of making excuses for other cultures in an attempt to insult our own. I don't think that products of the Enlightenment have to feel ashamed simply because self-loathing is popular on college campuses.

I even think it's OK for Americans to feel good about not having wiped out all our minorities in the 1940s.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I disagree. There is considerable value in doing this, and it's because what I see a lot are extreme examples of making excuses for other cultures in an attempt to insult our own. I don't think that products of the Enlightenment have to feel ashamed simply because self-loathing is popular on college campuses.

But the problem is that the other culture sees us making judgments, and begins to resent what they see is an attempt to control them and change them to suit our ideals. If they want to live in a crazy and disgusting way, let them. There's little you can do to change them, and they will hate you for trying. Let them fester in their own juices, they seem to like it well enough. Slap them back when they get too crazy, as in Darfur, but heck if it's worth the trouble for lesser matters.

I don't feel ashamed of my culture at all, but then I don't get to feeling personal about stuff, either pro or con. Politics is about practicalities; ideals sound good, but only cause fuss. I feel free to criticize other cultures, of course, but I don't expect them to care what I think.

 

[Larspeart]

That is the point that I stick with.

This section of the site is for CURRENT events. If you want to talk history, there is a section for it.

What the topic-starter is trying to show is that in TODAY'S world, freedom reigns where the in Islamic Cresent, it doesn't.


DO I condemn Islam... er, toughie. I have MAJOR problems with it, and I find it to be the worse case of the 'Big 5' religions.

Do I condemn Arabs? No, not as a people. I know a few really good ones (I live in detroit MI- the most heavily arab-populated area in North America). I also know some real ◊◊◊◊-heads. Course, you'll get those in any sampling.

I think that there are FAR more 'fundamentalist'-type muslims and arabs then there are in other major religions. FAR FAR more. I also can't find any well-known Christian group, Jewish group, or Buddhist group that promotes anything even REMOTELY similar to 'jihad' (any idiot that says 'The Crusades' in their response will lose all respect and credibility as I point you to the 'HISTORY' section, and AGAIN point out that this topic is about CURRENT world affairs).

57 innocent civilian IRAQIS were killed today trying to get jobs as policemen. IRAQI terrorists killed them. Imagine the reaction we would have in the US if some home-grown group killed 57 people wanting to make our community a better place? Now, in Iraq, the reaction was...

cheering
Cursing America (???)
Rejoicing
riots
and approval.

For F---'s sake, these are their OWN people! TRying to become POLICEMEN, for crying out loud!

Anyone that would react like that is SICK.

Any relgion that would promote, condone, or preach that is SICK.

So, there are Millions of sick Iraqis.

and

A lot of folks VERY high up in the Islamic religious world are VERY sick.

Do I condemn all arabs or muslims? No, but I gave a good view of my beliefs above.

 

[epepke]

But the problem is that the other culture sees us making judgments, and begins to resent what they see is an attempt to control them and change them to suit our ideals. If they want to live in a crazy and disgusting way, let them. There's little you can do to change them, and they will hate you for trying. Let them fester in their own juices, they seem to like it well enough. Slap them back when they get too crazy, as in Darfur, but heck if it's worth the trouble for lesser matters.

That in and of itself entails a judgement; that they aren't worth taking seriously. Not that I disagree with the judgement, of course, but someone will.

As far as the isolationism of letting people fester, well, it's a nice idea, and I'd really like to be able to try that with Europe, but there were a couple of times in the 20th century when that didn't work out so hot.