Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism

[MigL]

I believe Tampitump's excellent response to this ( in one of the other threads possibly ) was that the Muslims in the US are trying to get away from that cultural mindset ( not necessarily the religion or the Quran ) and are more open to new ideas.

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[Delta1212]

I believe Tampitump's excellent response to this ( in one of the other threads possibly ) was that the Muslims in the US are trying to get away from that cultural mindset ( not necessarily the religion or the Quran ) and are more open to new ideas.

Which, to my point, means that the problem is a specific culture that exists in certain areas of the Middle East, rather than being the religion of Islam itself.

[swansont]

And Tamitump is not addressing the Quran vs the Bible.

He's addressing the mindset of people who claim to follow those particular religions.

I thought this was about the religions, not about particular followers of the religions.

 

The thread title is "Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism", not "Do liberals think certain followers of Islam should be protected from Criticism"

[Willie71]

And Tamitump is not addressing the Quran vs the Bible.

He's addressing the mindset of people who claim to follow those particular religions.

Tampitump tried unsuccessfully to show that all followers were following a monolithic ideology, demonstrably false. He claimed it was the ideology that was the problem, not the people. This is getting confusing as the goalposts seem to keep moving. Edited September 13, 2016 by Willie71

[DrmDoc]

Tampitump tried unsuccessfully to show that all followers were following a monolithic ideology, demonstrably false. He claimed it was the ideology that was the problem, not the people. This is getting confusing as the goalposts seem to keep moving.

 

And I think the point being made here is that the ideology is not the problem​.​ The problem appears to be certain people's misinterpretation or corruption of that ideology.

[dimreepr]

 

And I think the point being made here is that the ideology is not the problem​.​ The problem appears to be certain people's misinterpretation or corruption of that ideology.

 

 

That's the point, a book can't behead a man or woman, it's always a human with a sharp bit of metal.

[Willie71]

That's the point, a book can't behead a man or woman, it's always a human with a sharp bit of metal.

Or in the case of western barbarism, drones and missiles.

[MigL]

Well, I do have my own opinions on the matter, and they don't necessarily mesh with Tampitump's.

 

The Middle East does embrace its religion more strongly than our societies do. Somewhat like we did in the middle ages.

They are much more likely to interpret religious scriptures literally.

And this is where the problem lies.

Their religion hasn't 'evolved' with their societies, but exerts a greater influence on their lives, as compared to ours.

[CharonY]

And what percentage of people actually believe stoning is an appropriate response for adultery in North America, Swansont ?

How do they compare to the Islamic world ?

 

 

 

An important point. However, why is it that in some areas punishment for certain crimes are less severe in others? For example, why is in Europe/Canad the death penalty not accepted for any kind of crime, while it is in the USA? Is it really the religion itself, or other developments?

See, we are actually talking about several thing. One is the ideology and their interpretation. If we look from that angle alone, we won't find a lot of difference between religions, who basically were formed in a very different time. Now, in order to criticize Islam people now conflate their criticism of religion (which would be basically valid for basically all religions) but point out to its current impact to make the point that it is something inherent to Islam and by extension to Muslims that causes the mentioned problems.

What is overlooked, of course is that it is a very one-dimensional view on a multi-dimensional problem. The situation in Afghanistan is very different from Iran, Iraq or Jordan, for example. The attitudes in the respective societies have changed and shifted (or not) according to the political and societal situation and is clearly not monolithic. Another point that is often overlooked is that the society also determines how views are expressed in public. For example, recent surveys in Germany have shown that up to 30% of the people held views that were very close or identical to the anti-democratic ideologies of the national socialists in the 30s. Yet the way the constitution is set up and how public discourse is held, reduces the likelihood of the rise of a dictatorship. Likewise, instability can bring out atrocities that can utilize every ideology, religion, bigotery or pseudo-science to bring out the worst atrocities (the last one in Europe being the aftermath after the breakup of Yugoslavia).

I.e. if Germany was embroiled in a civil war, these extreme beliefs are much more likely to be acted upon.

 

Of course it is necessary to point out issues and engage in discussions, but the big issue is that in many cases the criticism is so sweeping that it prohibits any constructive dialogue. Even worse, by blaming all one a singular factor (Islam), ignoring all external factors and therefore declare all Muslims (regardless of background) to be unfit members of our society is not only a flawed argument, but also a harmful one. Others have pointed it out already, but think of it that way. If you believe that certain people have something and you believe it cannot be changed (regardless whether it is true or not). And then think that it is inherently bad and therefore those people are unfit to become members of our society. How is that not bigoted?

 

Another question one could ask is why in some areas religion has a stronger influence on society. For example, we can see that in Azerbeijan the support for Sharia as law of the land is at 8%, whereas in Afghanistan it is 99%. Or in Lebanon we find 29% agreement, whereas in Russia it is 42%. Or taking apostasty as a benchmark for the grip religion has on society. Among those that support Sharia law the support for the death penalty for apostasy ranges from 4% (Kazhakstan, putting the overall support among Muslims for the death penalty for apostasy at 0.4%), to as high as 86% in Egypt (~60% total). What I would find interesting is changes in attitude over time and overlay that with major political upheavals.

Again, it is a multi factorial issue and needs to be discussed as such.

[MigL]

Thanks for a well thought out response CharonY.

And you absolutely right, there are many factors to consider.

And taking any 'off the table' for discussion is never a good idea.

[waitforufo]

How about we all agree that no civilized nation would be ruled by Sharia law and that anyone that suggests a nation should be so ruled ought to be criticized.

[MigL]

As long as we stipulate Sharia or any other Religiously inspired law, I'm fine with that.

Laws SHOULD be based on evidence and facts as they apply to everyone, not beliefs like Religion, which are subjective.

[waitforufo]

As long as we stipulate Sharia or any other Religiously inspired law, I'm fine with that.

Laws SHOULD be based on evidence and facts as they apply to everyone, not beliefs like Religion, which are subjective.

I'm good with that.

[Phi for All]

How about we all agree that no civilized nation would be ruled by Sharia law and that anyone that suggests a nation should be so ruled ought to be criticized.

 

Change that to Biblical law and I'd agree. All that stuff is crazy. I'm pretty sure it's why we have a separation of Church and State in the US.

 

Mosaic law is a bitch too. 613 of them, fortunately 26 of them only apply when you visit Israel.

 

Christian law is probably the worst, simply because it's so open to interpretation. From 9000+ sects.

[waitforufo]

 

Change that to Biblical law and I'd agree. All that stuff is crazy. I'm pretty sure it's why we have a separation of Church and State in the US.

 

Mosaic law is a bitch too. 613 of them, fortunately 26 of them only apply when you visit Israel.

 

Christian law is probably the worst, simply because it's so open to interpretation. From 9000+ sects.

So you are saying that Sharia law is okay with you? You wouldn't criticize someone who believed your nation should be ruled under Sharia law.

[DrmDoc]

How about we all agree that no civilized nation would be ruled by Sharia law and that anyone that suggests a nation should be so ruled ought to be criticized.

 

Laws are necessary to a civilized society and even Sharia laws was likely necessary to the societies and cultures that originated them. I do think certain religious laws aren't particularly conducive to a free-thinking society. Some laws can be quite severe and disproportionate where harsh punishments are meted out for relatively minor infractions. Sharia law in America is frankly an irrational concern, it would require a change to our Constitution that likely won't occur without a revolution or actual war.

[waitforufo]

 

Laws are necessary to a civilized society and even Sharia laws was likely necessary to the societies and cultures that originated them. I do think certain religious laws aren't particularly conducive to a free-thinking society. Some laws can be quite severe and disproportionate where harsh punishments are meted out for relatively minor infractions. Sharia law in America is frankly an irrational concern, it would require a change to our Constitution that likely won't occur without a revolution or actual war.

While I agree with everything you said above, I think in our modern world, anyone who supports or encourages Sharia law anywhere should be criticized harshly. If that hurts there feelings, all the better.

[DrmDoc]

While I agree with everything you said above, I think in our modern world, anyone who supports or encourages Sharia law anywhere should be criticized harshly. If that hurts there feelings, all the better.

 

So, is the goal to hurt their feelings or criticize the effort? Which do you think would be more productive?

[Phi for All]

So you are saying that Sharia law is okay with you? You wouldn't criticize someone who believed your nation should be ruled under Sharia law.

 

Why would you think that, based on what I said? Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism, same as Christianity. There's little difference when you're talking about using it as the ultimate law of the land. It's only the extremists who want to be governed by it in any religion.

 

Give the Westboro Baptists some RPGs, see how quickly they'll want everyone under Christian law.

[waitforufo]

 

So, is the goal to hurt their feelings or criticize the effort? Which do you think would be more productive?

No the goal is not to hurt their feelings but to communicate that their goal of implementing Sharia law in the modern world is counterproductive to promoting human nature. If that hurts their feelings, those feelings need to be hurt. They need to know that there will be resistance.

 

 

Why would you think that, based on what I said? Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism, same as Christianity. There's little difference when you're talking about using it as the ultimate law of the land. It's only the extremists who want to be governed by it in any religion.

 

Give the Westboro Baptists some RPGs, see how quickly they'll want everyone under Christian law.

The subject of this topic is "Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism". I pointed out that those that promote Sharia law, generally speaking the followers of Islam, should be criticized. I left out other religions because of the subject of this topic. MigL included all other religions and I agreed with him. You on the other hand said.

 

 

Change that to Biblical law and I'd agree. All that stuff is crazy. I'm pretty sure it's why we have a separation of Church and State in the US.

 

Mosaic law is a bitch too. 613 of them, fortunately 26 of them only apply when you visit Israel.

 

Christian law is probably the worst, simply because it's so open to interpretation. From 9000+ sects.

 

The implication of your post starting with "Change that" is that you are against living under Biblical Law and Mosaic Law but not Sharia law. You did not say "include" Biblical law and Mosaic law. My question was simply seeking clarification.

 

So do you think those promoting Sharia law in the modern world should be criticized or not?

 

You clearly are capable of criticizing the followers of the Westboro Baptist church. I completely agree with that criticism. Are you capable of criticizing muslims who promote Sharia law?

Edited September 13, 2016 by waitforufo

[DrmDoc]

No the goal is not to hurt their feelings but to communicate that their goal of implementing Sharia law in the modern world is counterproductive to promoting human nature. If that hurts their feelings, those feelings need to be hurt. They need to know that there will be resistance.

 

I don't think we'll have to do that anytime soon. Personally, I've yet to meet or hear of anyone in America clamoring for or about Sharia law other than those vehemently opposed to it. This would probably be a non-issue for the few who may have concerns if it wasn't quite the subject of fearmongering as it appears to be, in my opinion.

Edited September 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Phi for All]

The subject of this topic is "Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism". I pointed out that those that promote Sharia law, generally speaking the followers of Islam, should be criticized. I left out other religions because of the subject of this topic. MigL included all other religions and I agreed with him. You on the other hand said.

 

 

 

The implication of your post starting with "Change that" is that you are against living under Biblical Law and Mosaic Law but not Sharia law. You did not say "include" Biblical law and Mosaic law. My question was simply seeking clarification.

 

So do you think those promoting Sharia law in the modern world should be criticized or not?

 

You clearly are capable of criticizing the followers of the Westboro Baptist church. I completely agree with that criticism. Are you capable of criticizing muslims who promote Sharia law?

 

Biblical law, Sharia law, Mosaic law, it's all based on strict, extremist, literal interpretions of the Bible. I'm against any religion being used as the basis of government for a modern human society. I criticize extremism wherever it's practised, including in my own country. I've never worried about anyone trying to convert any western country to a theocracy, because it's frankly laughable. That any American is worried that we'll suddenly find ourselves governed by Sharia law makes me very sad. Those folks should be watching out for extreme Christians; the US is FAR MORE LIKELY to be co-opted by a militant wing of a Christian sect.

 

If you dare, check out the FBI's documentation of the Christian Identity Movement. You'll be hearing a lot about these guys if your vote puts your candidate in office.

[waitforufo]

 

I don't think we'll have to do that anytime soon. Personally, I've yet to meet or hear of anyone in America clamoring for or about Sharia law other than those vehemently opposed to it. This would probably be a non-issue for the few who may have concerns if it wasn't quite the subject of fearmongering as it appears to be, in my opinion.

 

 

Biblical law, Sharia law, Mosaic law, it's all based on strict, extremist, literal interpretions of the Bible. I'm against any religion being used as the basis of government for a modern human society. I criticize extremism wherever it's practised, including in my own country. I've never worried about anyone trying to convert any western country to a theocracy, because it's frankly laughable. That any American is worried that we'll suddenly find ourselves governed by Sharia law makes me very sad. Those folks should be watching out for extreme Christians; the US is FAR MORE LIKELY to be co-opted by a militant wing of a Christian sect.

 

If you dare, check out the FBI's documentation of the Christian Identity Movement. You'll be hearing a lot about these guys if your vote puts your candidate in office.

 

It appears to me that neither of you know very many muslims. I have know and been friends with several from the mid 1980 to the present. All of them would defend Sharia law, and I would always criticize them for it. You both act as if the promotion of Sharia law is only done by a small number of muslims. Yet you both seem incapable of criticizing even what you believe to be a small minority of muslims. From that I have to conclude that liberals do indeed think Islam should be protected from criticism. At least that is true for you two.

 

Phi for all, Sharia law is not found in the bible. Where on earth do you find Christians or Jews in our modern world practicing anything close to Sharia Law. You see Western civilization figured out that church and state should be separated back during the enlightenment. The US constitution, even with it's flaws, is a shining example of that insight.

[DrmDoc]

It appears to me that neither of you know very many muslims. I have know and been friends with several from the mid 1980 to the present. All of them would defend Sharia law, and I would always criticize them for it. You both act as if the promotion of Sharia law is only done by a small number of muslims. Yet you both seem incapable of criticizing even what you believe to be a small minority of muslims. From that I have to conclude that liberals do indeed think Islam should be protected from criticism. At least that is true for you two.

 

That's very interesting...so...at one point during your knowing or friendship with these Muslims did they attempt to either force or subject you to Sharia law?

[waitforufo]

 

That's very interesting...so...at one point during your knowing or friendship with these Muslims did they attempt to either force or subject you to Sharia law?

Force or subject no, but all of them believed the United States should be ruled under Sharia law. It would make us happier I was always told. I always told them it would lead to bloodshed. They seemed okay with that.