ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags anti-Islam rhetoric , anti-islam sentiments , atheism , islam

Reply
Old 9th November 2017, 04:01 AM   #281
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Because you treat them from the assumption that they are emotionally and intelectually not able to differentiate between attacks on them and attacks on some idea they hold dear. And such a character flaw is usually something i only find unproblematic in minors; with adults it is irritating at best.

To make you understand, presume for a second Amnesty International should refrain from attacking ideas i hold dear. So that if i say to Amnesty: "The way you publically act and argue, you attack this idea dear to me in this way and in this way, etc. , please do not do it."

Should then Amnesty realy say: "Ok, you are just 1 out of 7 billion, but since we follow David Mo's suggestion not to attack ideas hold dear by somebody, we will adjust as follows: ..."
Is that what you suggest? That due my personal sensibilities an entire organization should adjust it's approach to some matter?

Which is compared to one or several murders a less important crime.
Violations of independece of justice happen regularly even in states with awareness about the importance of an independent justice (it's just not regularly noticed).
1. The idea that men can dissociate their beliefs from their persons is yours, not mine. I think this is impossible both for adults and children. Therefore your last criticism doesn’t affect me.

2. Amnesty International never judges ideologies. They say that this warrants their independence of judgment. They attack only deeds and laws that violate Human Rights. Therefore I have nothing to tell to AI about the “attacks against Islam”.

3. I was not making a value judgment. I was only saying that the police massive killings in the Philippines are committed in a wide framework of general deterioration of democracy. Wider doesn’t means worse or better. It is a different level of categories.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:50 AM   #282
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,200
I imagine most would have no difficulty expressing an opinion regarding German, Italian or Spanish fascism in the 1930s. Would discussing it mean, by necessity, falling into personal attacks or improperly sweeping rejections based on ethnicity? Alrighty, then.... So, we have ideologies, and we can observe they are associated with behaviors in real life. So now, what elements are common to any ideology when it results in violence? I suggest there are two main sources of such behavior: the actual canon, and human pride and fallibility in assuming "perfect" doctrines translate directly into "perfect" actions; i.e., that Big Truth confers absolute authority.

And there it is, the keyword-in-waiting: absolutism.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 9th November 2017 at 05:53 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 06:14 AM   #283
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
1. The idea that men can dissociate their beliefs from their persons is yours, not mine. I think this is impossible both for adults and children.
And your hold the opposite idea, that men cannot do this.

While you probably do not understand it, but your idea is the more fragile; for my idea to be true, it would be sufficient if a considerable number of adult humans are capable of what you call "dissociation"; for your idea to be true EVERY SINGLE one of the 5+ billion adult humans must be incapable of "dissociations".

As soon as a single human exists capable of that, your position is proven to be wrong.

Which reminds me, i am capable of what you claim is not possible and hence your argument is destroyed by evidence.

But i am also certain, you are not able to understand this.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

2. Amnesty International never judges ideologies.
False.

Here AI launched a campaign against racism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kate..._10773972.html
"Why Amnesty Has Launched an Emergency Campaign on Racism"
and this campaign certainly includes also activity against racist ideologies.

Does your concern about not offending people by attacking ideas also cover the ideas of racism?
Cause when one calls racism wrong, racists might perceive this attack on their belief system as a personal attack and you are supposedly against doing that.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:10 PM   #284
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I imagine most would have no difficulty expressing an opinion regarding German, Italian or Spanish fascism in the 1930s. Would discussing it mean, by necessity, falling into personal attacks or improperly sweeping rejections based on ethnicity? Alrighty, then.... So, we have ideologies, and we can observe they are associated with behaviors in real life. So now, what elements are common to any ideology when it results in violence? I suggest there are two main sources of such behavior: the actual canon, and human pride and fallibility in assuming "perfect" doctrines translate directly into "perfect" actions; i.e., that Big Truth confers absolute authority.

And there it is, the keyword-in-waiting: absolutism.
Fascism has as a central tenet a struggle of annihilation between semi-arbitrarily defined "peoples". You can absolutely find ideologies of struggle in many other areas (it is after all the literal meaning of "jihad"), but fascism posits struggle and destruction as an end in itself. Even the ultimately monstrous ideologies of colonialism and imperialism tended to have some idea of "spreading civilization". Fascism in its original form was, I think, a rather unique reaction to the advent of modernity, so nihilistic it was bound to collapse on itself.

Very few ideologies completely prohibit subjugations - arguably most modern ones presuppose it.

Whatever role Islam had in historic conflicts, it is clear that it was almost universally exaggerated in hindsight. "I consolidated power for comquest and glory in the name of Allah!" is a lot easier to sell than "I teamed up with Charlemagne/the Byzantine Emperor/the Tsar/some other infidel to usurp my brother's throne and steal his wife" or whatever they might've been up to.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 11:56 PM   #285
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And your hold the opposite idea, that men cannot do this.
(...)
As soon as a single human exists capable of that, your position is proven to be wrong.
Which reminds me, i am capable of what you claim is not possible and hence your argument is destroyed by evidence.
Not so quickly. Put on hold a moment your chants of victory.

Maybe a single one among 5 billion of people can make an effort and to consider that someone that says that his ideas are stupid and immoral is not offending his person. This is the exception that confirm the norm. Furthermore, when he will lower his guard, he will show ungry himself. This will show that he is really upset with the criticism.
See yourself:

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
But i am also certain, you are not able to understand this.
Now you begin to insult my mental capacities. This shows that you are offended by my criticism of your ideas, even thought I was trying to be polite with them.
See: You are not the exception of the norm.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
False.
Here AI launched a campaign against racism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kate..._10773972.html
"Why Amnesty Has Launched an Emergency Campaign on Racism"
and this campaign certainly includes also activity against racist ideologies.
After fifteen years working with AI I think that I know well its principles. Don’t make it so easy for me, please:

“Amnesty International has no political affiliation, endorses no political party, accepts no funds from governments or any political party. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the protection of the human rights involved in each case, regardless of the ideology of the government, opposition forces or the beliefs of the individual.” (From Frequent Asked Questions in AI official website; bold letters are mine; more information here).

Your question was directed about the AI’s opinion about Islam. A religious creed, a belief and an ideology.
Is it clear now?
NOTE: I consider that racism or totalitarianism are sets of ideas included in particular ideologies. AI denounces this kind of ideas because they are contradictory with the UN Declaration of Human Rights —that is the reference text for them— and are a direct violation of this declaration. Therefore they establish a difference between ideas (reprehensible) and ideologies (restrain of judgment). Is it clear for you now? Of course, this can led us to the debate on whether this declaration is ideology or not, but this is a subject far from our issue. In any case AI doesn’t enter in the problem of Islam.
This is a tactical attitude, of course, more restricted that mine.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Does your concern about not offending people by attacking ideas also cover the ideas of racism?
Cause when one calls racism wrong, racists might perceive this attack on their belief system as a personal attack and you are supposedly against doing that.
Of course not. I am not worried at all if my criticism offends a racist. I reserve my respect for those who deserve it. I think that I have said this in the beginning of our debate.

Last edited by David Mo; 9th November 2017 at 11:57 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:04 AM   #286
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Not so quickly. Put on hold a moment your chants of victory.

Maybe a single one among 5 billion of people can make an effort and to consider that someone that says that his ideas are stupid and immoral is not offending his person. This is the exception that confirm the norm. Furthermore, when he will lower his guard, he will show ungry himself. This will show that he is really upset with the criticism.
See yourself:


Now you begin to insult my mental capacities. This shows that you are offended by my criticism of your ideas, even thought I was trying to be polite with them.
See: You are not the exception of the norm.
It was not an insult but a prognosis based on countless discussions with people making sweeping declaration about all individuals of large groups of diverse humans; it's often (not always) that who offers such a claim has problems understanding that a single exception destroys the claim.

But maybe you are one of the few exceptions to that experience. Though it is unlikely as you seem to think your claim is validated by suppesedly being able to argue about one counter-example presented, while potentially there might be millions or billions more.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Therefore they establish a difference between ideas (reprehensible) and ideologies (restrain of judgment). Is it clear for you now?
Yes, if you think it violates human rights it is not an ideology/religion/whatever else is beyond criticism and otherwise its not an ideology/religion/whatever.

Which means you think that Islamic scipture does not include any violation or incitement to violation of human rights.

And which also means you operate with definitions distinct from the usual ones used for the terms.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I reserve my respect for those who deserve it.
Which means your personal opinions should be the criteria, which ideas are ok to attack and which ideas are off-limits.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 12:33 AM   #287
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
It was not an insult but a prognosis based on countless discussions with people making sweeping declaration about all individuals of large groups of diverse humans;
To say that someone is not able to understand something that you have tried to explain several times is to cast doubt on his mental capacity. This is an insult


Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Yes, if you think it violates human rights it is not an ideology/religion/whatever else is beyond criticism and otherwise its not an ideology/religion/whatever.
We were not speaking about what I think, but on what AI says.
Anyway, I don't understand your logic. Restraining your opinion about X don't suppose any proposition or value judgment about X. This is the caution principle of epokhē. Many reasons for this are possible. AI epokhē is tactical and depends of the conception and limits of his mission.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And which also means you operate with definitions distinct from the usual ones used for the terms.
I don't think so. "AI doesn't make any judgement about religions or ideologies in general". Don't you understand this?


Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Which means your personal opinions should be the criteria, which ideas are ok to attack and which ideas are off-limits.
I have not other than personal opinions to put here, They can be more or less reasonable. And this is the only thing that matters.

Last edited by David Mo; 11th November 2017 at 12:38 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 02:21 AM   #288
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't think so. "AI doesn't make any judgement about religions or ideologies in general". Don't you understand this?
You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 06:44 AM   #289
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?
You're equivocating fuzzy terms like "ideology" in lieu of honest analysis.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 08:25 AM   #290
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?
First of all: let us distinguish what I say from what AI says.

Now I am explaining the mission of AI:
In order to be impartial, AI never evaluates any political, religious or ideological doctrine. You never will found a global disqualification of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, liberalism or communism in an official AI paper. Therefore it is useless to question whether AI considers the Koran as a relevant or essential source of terrorism or not. AI never will pronounce itself about this.

I hope that this be clear for you. If you find some AI’s criticism of the Koran or the Bible I would be absolutely amazed. What AI can criticize is the consequences of some interpretation of the Koran, but I doubt that you can find something like this. They are extremely scrupulous on what they call their “impartiality”. (NOTE: I ceased to be an active member of AI four years ago. Things may have changed in those years but I doubt it. What I am saying are the basical principles of this NGO).

Now, your criticism:
You think that AI is incoherent when they attack racism, because you think that racism is an ideology.
AI doesn’t consider racism as an “ideology” or, at least it is not a political, religious or philosophical ideology in the same sense that communism or Christianity are. Racism is an idea that directly attacks some articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 2, specially: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”). It is a component of diverse ideologies in the wider sense,not an ideology by itself. Therefore AI may consider itself impartial of any ideology, but would be belligerent when a particular ideology includes a racist point in its principles. In the case that diverse ideologies draw different consequences from the same text, AI only adopts a position on these consequences.

If you want to know my own position, ask me and leave AI in peace.

NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.

Last edited by David Mo; 11th November 2017 at 08:42 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 08:54 AM   #291
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,918
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
That hasn't been my impression at all. I have not observed any trend among atheists to be selectively less critical of Islam than Christianity, or any other religion. Due to the fact that most of my experience is with atheists in Christian majority populations, I have observed a tendency for many people to characterize Islam as having some intrinsic qualities that make it worse than Christianity. But I haven't seen anything that would lead me to draw that conclusion. The problems in the Muslim world all seem to me to have strong components of poverty, political and social instability, governmental oppression and warfare. When these sorts of problems have plagued Christian populations they have had similar results.

So if someone states that they think that Islam is more dangerous than Christianity because of some intrinsic quality within the doctrines and dogma of the religion itself, then I will argue against that. But I think that any general religious criticism that can be fairly leveled against Christianity can also be fairly leveled against Islam. In my experience, it's not so much that atheists have treated Islam with greater kindness than Christianity, but they have rather pointed out when others have spoken as though Islam is any more harmful than Christianity. It's true that the Muslim world has greater problems than the Christian world at this time, but that has actually been the reverse in the past and has nothing to do with Christianity being the lesser of two evils.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:37 AM   #292
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Now, your criticism:
You think that AI is incoherent when they attack racism, because you think that racism is an ideology.

...

If you want to know my own position, ask me and leave AI in peace.

NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.
My latest criticism was only, that AI and you yourself use some words with a meaning DIFFERENT from the usual meaning.

E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
"White supremacy or white supremacism IS a racist IDEOLOGY"

Which by the way is fine; i am used to having different words different meaning in different context and by different people.

But it does not make one look good, if one seems to be completely unaware about other regular use of a word and unaware about what definitions a word has in usual sources.

At least i understand now, why texts by human rights organizations so often seem to be somewhat strange; its just that i make the error to presume their words have the usual meaning; thank you for that.

@TubbaBlubba

I am far more capable of honest analysis than you are, cause i do not care one way or another what the result of such analysis is.

It's just that my honest analysis highlights in your worldview certain contradictions/inconsistencies; which i try to understand by asking you rather simple and stupid questions, cause otherwise you will not notice them as you have found complicated ways to ignore the inconsistencies/contradictions; but of course you avoid questions; but me asking simple questions makes you think that i am the stupid one in this discussion.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 06:52 AM   #293
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
You're getting hung up by the fact that AI criticizes something called an "ideology" in one context (that you found by entering a few keywords into google in hope of a link to support your argument), where as DM said that they do not criticize "political or religious ideology or doctrine". You're ignoring the fact that "ideology" does not mean the exact same thing in those contexts. Sometimes you must step beyond dictionary definitions and look at the broader implications of a statement.

Amnesty does not, for example, criticize HR violations by dictatorships more harshly than democracies, nor does it criticize Muslim or Socialist countries more harshly than Capitalist or Christian ones. It exacts criticism based solely on individual human rights. It is perfectly consistent for them to criticize white supremacy, as it is literally defined by violation of the rights of non-whites. But it would not criticize violations by white supremacists more harshly than violations by any other group. It looks at the violations itself. In this sense, AI does not criticize WS as an ideology.

This is honestly not a difficult idea to grasp.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:15 PM   #294
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
My latest criticism was only, that AI and you yourself use some words with a meaning DIFFERENT from the usual meaning.
E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
"White supremacy or white supremacism IS a racist IDEOLOGY"

Which by the way is fine; i am used to having different words different meaning in different context and by different people.
I didn’t know that Wikipedia was the authority that decides the true meaning of words. Anyway, in Wikipedia’s entry Ideology you can see how many different meanings has the word “ideology”. It is not worth that we start a discussion on the subject. We are off-topic for some time now. Nevertheless I have explained you why AI makes a distinction between condemning racism and condemning other ideologies as Islam, Christianity, Communism or Liberalism. It seems that you overlook this:
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
AI doesn’t consider racism as an “ideology” or, at least it is not a political, religious or philosophical ideology in the same sense that communism or Christianity are. Racism is an idea that directly attacks some articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 2, specially: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”). (…) Therefore AI may consider itself impartial of any ideology, but would be belligerent when a particular ideology includes a racist point in its principles. In the case that diverse ideologies draw different consequences from the same text, AI only adopts a position on these consequences.
The distinction seems clear and consistent.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
But it does not make one look good, if one seems to be completely unaware about other regular use of a word and unaware about what definitions a word has in usual sources.
Wikipedia again?
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
At least i understand now, why texts by human rights organizations so often seem to be somewhat strange; its just that i make the error to presume their words have the usual meaning; thank you for that.
I don’t know how a unique mention in a single paper of an idea that you consider “ideology” can turn into a global disqualification of all NGOs. This is disproportionated and lacking of any logic. You don’t like NGOs, is it not?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.
Of course, because supremacism is the idea that something is superior to other, and this is exactly what means “racism”. And white is white, as long as Wikipedia would not say the contrary.

Last edited by David Mo; 12th November 2017 at 11:16 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:22 AM   #295
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,200
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Fascism has as a central tenet a struggle of annihilation between semi-arbitrarily defined "peoples". You can absolutely find ideologies of struggle in many other areas (it is after all the literal meaning of "jihad"), but fascism posits struggle and destruction as an end in itself. Even the ultimately monstrous ideologies of colonialism and imperialism tended to have some idea of "spreading civilization". Fascism in its original form was, I think, a rather unique reaction to the advent of modernity, so nihilistic it was bound to collapse on itself.

Very few ideologies completely prohibit subjugations - arguably most modern ones presuppose it.
Which is what makes any ideology, particularly when taken as absolute, a danger, especially if there are no, few, or poor mechanisms for peacefully dealing with opponents and/or non-adherents.

Quote:
Whatever role Islam had in historic conflicts, it is clear that it was almost universally exaggerated in hindsight. "I consolidated power for comquest and glory in the name of Allah!" is a lot easier to sell than "I teamed up with Charlemagne/the Byzantine Emperor/the Tsar/some other infidel to usurp my brother's throne and steal his wife" or whatever they might've been up to.
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
<mega snip>... It's true that the Muslim world has greater problems than the Christian world at this time, but that has actually been the reverse in the past and has nothing to do with Christianity being the lesser of two evils.
The point to pursue is not the relative level of harm done, rather, what either the ideology itself provides as rationale for doing harm, or the way in which the ideology is considered as absolute. That is, that which explains how or why exposure to any given set of ideas might lead to terrorism, oppression, or denial of rights. For example, knowing about the ideas of Marie Le Pen or Richard Spencer provides clues to their potential behaviors, or those of their followers. Certainly, poverty, suffering or oppression are not statistically discriminating OTOH; that is, there is a very loose correlation between general socioeconomic condition and violent action.

To take an example from recent news, we have the clearly personal, and therefore psychological, motivations of the recent church shooter in Texas. No ideology, just "reasons." Commonly held as more mystifying is the motivation of the Las Vegas mass shooter, who left no rationale for his actions, possibly also personal. And then we have those who will plainly state the reason for action, as in the case of the motor vehicle terrorist attack in NYC.

Motivations, and therefore actions, are shaped by beliefs. This view is common to anthropology, psychology, sociology, and political science. For what, in broad terms, is culture, and why can behaviors be identified with one or another, such as sexual mores, or types and severity of punishments sanctioned by society for criminal acts?

In short, ideas matter. This is the foundation for any analysis of the relation between a set of beliefs and outcomes.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:33 AM   #296
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Yes, but to understand how ideas affect society in any one period or context, you need to make a sound argument grounded in primary sources. Even so, there is a fundamental problem with this type of analysis - it all too frequently has to relay what someone wrote about what they thought someone thought about what they thought.

The commom assertions about Islam's special inherent violence are the oldest type of anti-Muslim rhetoric there is. They're not based in fact.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 12:38 AM   #297
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The distinction seems clear and consistent.
"seems" being the relevant word.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don’t know how a unique mention in a single paper of an idea that you consider “ideology” can turn into a global disqualification of all NGOs. This is disproportionated and lacking of any logic. You don’t like NGOs, is it not?
You do not like the usual definition of words. I said something about "human rights organizations"; you presume that i am talking about NGOs; but these two words have usually distinct meanings.

Some human rights organizations aren't a NGO, e.g. UNHCR is a human rights organization (though its name implies it being only a single person, it has 10000 staff members) but not an NGO.

Some NGOs aren't human rights organizations, e.g. the NRA is an NGO but i guess quite a few would not call it a human rights organization.

As i already said, nearly any definition of a word is fine as long as one is aware about usual definitions to avoid misunderstanding like that one.

I did not say anything about NGOs in general, but only about "human rights organizations" and by the qualifier "often" its not necessarily a statement about all of them.

Keep that as something to learn from our discussion, that the definition of words is critical. I at least try to do that.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is honestly not a difficult idea to grasp.
Of course it is easy to grasp that AI makes that mental gymnastics to present an image of ideological neutrality.

And of course it is also in some sense ridiculous, as by trying to be a HUMAN RIGHTS organization one cannot be ideological neutral, as human rights are an ideology. Mostly a fine one from my POV, but nonetheless an ideology.

Hence, a human rights organization in the end cannot be ideological neutral.

That human rights are non-neutral one already sees from the here discussed CDHRI. Nobody would go to the hassle to formulate a declaration of human rights in islam if human rights were ideologically neutral. They aren't.

Its currently the internationally dominant ideology (with some variations or variations in interpretation) at least formally. It would be nice, if that continues; but some human rights organizations will be of little help with that, if the **** hits the fan (which i hope will not happen, but no guarantees there).
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:03 AM   #298
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
I do not find Amnesty's position at all difficult to understand. It appears consistent and conveys their practice very well. Perhaps you could send them an email and ask them to explain it to you in simpler terms, because I'm not sure we're going to get further if you insist on decontextualizing the notion of "ideology". Of course, if accounting for context is mere "mental gymnastics" to you, then some things may, I'm afraid, forever remain elusive.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:27 AM   #299
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
because I'm not sure we're going to get further
There is no need for me to get further, as i understand the relevant positions discussed and understand my own position. You and David Mo do understand your own positions, some other positions discussed, but do not understand my position or that of several other posters; but since you are not even aware about not understanding and/or do not care, there is also no need to "get further".
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 05:43 AM   #300
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Just for the irony:

https://translate.google.com/transla...a-1177841.html

"The authorities should control mosques more closely. "You can not allow everyone to preach.""

""You can not just open a mosque and allow everyone to go there and preach, there has to be a license for it," he said. The countries on the continent meant well, allowing "these people" to run their own mosques and their own community centers. But religious leaders need to be educated, knowledgeable about Islam and have a license."

"In Germany, the state plays no role in the selection of preachers in mosques. Mosques do not need a permit either. The background is the religious freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law."

So an Arab Muslim implying that the usual religious freedom is supposedly for security reasons a bad idea in respect to islamic religious centers. Is he a racist islamophob for not only suggesting to observe mosques but actually control and license them (and if i understand correctly he means ALL mosques, not just suspicious ones)?

But i expect as often in this discussion, this question want receive an answer (to spell it out: to qualify as an answer it would have to include some statement like "No, he is no racist islamophobe"/"He is an islamophobe but no racist"/".." with potential bonus material including something like "In general, just suggesting to ensure some state control/observations of ALL mosques does not make one islamophobe or racist"/"In general, presuming that Islam should be subjected to special scrutinity as this person suggest is always islamophobic and hence this Muslim is an islamophobe"/"..." or some other statements in this regard)
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 11:50 PM   #301
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I do not find Amnesty's position at all difficult to understand. It appears consistent and conveys their practice very well. Perhaps you could send them an email and ask them to explain it to you in simpler terms, because I'm not sure we're going to get further if you insist on decontextualizing the notion of "ideology". Of course, if accounting for context is mere "mental gymnastics" to you, then some things may, I'm afraid, forever remain elusive.
I support your suggestion.
I don't understand what Carn wants to say with "gymnastic". The confussion between Organization for Human Rights and NGO, neither. It was clear that I was speaking of non-governmentall ONGs that defend the Human Rights. I think that he messes things up unnecessarily.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 12:51 AM   #302
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post

You do not like the usual definition of words. I said something about "human rights organizations"; you presume that i am talking about NGOs; but these two words have usually distinct meanings.


I did not say anything about NGOs in general, but only about "human rights organizations" and by the qualifier "often" its not necessarily a statement about all of them.

(...)

Of course it is easy to grasp that AI makes that mental gymnastics to present an image of ideological neutrality.

And of course it is also in some sense ridiculous, as by trying to be a HUMAN RIGHTS organization one cannot be ideological neutral, as human rights are an ideology. Mostly a fine one from my POV, but nonetheless an ideology.

Hence, a human rights organization in the end cannot be ideological neutral.
It was clear that I was speaking of non-governmental NGOs.

You are right in your criticism. AI defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UDHR is ideological. It represents something like a social-liberal ideology. But you are in a mistake. UDHR is a set of basic rules —sometimes too basic— that allows to particular ideologies play their games till some extent. These are our basic rules in Western democracies. And in AI are coherent —not ridiculous— when they refuse to judge these particular ideologies as a whole. This is AI's impartiality. I don’t know what other NGOs say, but I suppose that it is alike. Giving the difficulty to live without any ideology, it is the most acceptable concept of impartiality that I know.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Just for the irony:

https://translate.google.com/transla...a-1177841.html

"The authorities should control mosques more closely. "You can not allow everyone to preach.""

""You can not just open a mosque and allow everyone to go there and preach, there has to be a license for it," he said. The countries on the continent meant well, allowing "these people" to run their own mosques and their own community centers. But religious leaders need to be educated, knowledgeable about Islam and have a license."

"In Germany, the state plays no role in the selection of preachers in mosques. Mosques do not need a permit either. The background is the religious freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law." [These are not Sheikh’s words!]
So an Arab Muslim implying that the usual religious freedom is supposedly for security reasons a bad idea in respect to islamic religious centers. Is he a racist islamophob for not only suggesting to observe mosques but actually control and license them (and if i understand correctly he means ALL mosques, not just suspicious ones)?
Minister of Tolerance? This is a true irony!

I don’t know if this Arab Minister is racist. It is not strange that a representative of ethnical minorities can support racist ideas. Do you know Uncle Tom? But he is decidedly ignorant of what democracy and religious freedom are —not strange considering the country of origin. In democracy there is not any exam or authoritative institution that can stop someone to preach Christianity, Buddhism or Islam as he likes. In the respect of law, of course. You can join your friends in your living room and preach the gospel of the Spaghetti Monster or the Saints of the Ninth Day if you wants. I suppose that for more massive meetings some kind of legal permission is needed.
An Arab Minister, that comes from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy doesn’t know what democracy is, but I have supposed that you are not a fan of the Arab monarchy.

ADDED: It is odd that this Arab Minister comes from the country that is usually blamed for finance the mosques that are the centre of Islamic radicalism. A case of hypocrisy or Sacred Ignorance? Perhaps the filters don't work?

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Keep that as something to learn from our discussion, that the definition of words is critical. I at least try to do that.
Thank you for this semantic lesson! But I have the impression that you do some “gymnastics” more than a true analysis of words. Here my lesson of the day:

Without any contrary indication, take the simpler meaning of the words in their context.

Please, take note.

Last edited by David Mo; 15th November 2017 at 02:37 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 03:58 AM   #303
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
These are our basic rules in Western democracies.
...
In democracy there is not any exam or authoritative institution that can stop someone to preach Christianity, Buddhism or Islam as he likes. In the respect of law, of course. You can join your friends in your living room and preach the gospel of the Spaghetti Monster or the Saints of the Ninth Day if you wants.
Since we are trying to learn lessons here, here comes a pretty difficult lessons or problem for which i do not know an answer or solution:

As you say in the rules of "Western democracies" the concept of some intrusive oversight of what is preached is nearly or completely alien.

These rules were developed in societies with certain religions having a relevant role in society. And they worked and continue to work today. With said certain religions and also with some other religions.

The unspoken, never considered, never realy discussed assumption underlying this:

That religious freedom which worked fine with said certain religions having a relevant role in society, WILL work just as fine with ANY OTHER of the thousands of other religions having a relevant role in society (to clarify, not several thousand other religions have relevant roles in societies; the assumption is that if suddenly a 100 million converted to wiccan religions in Japan, making wiccan religion suddenly relevant in Japan, it would not be any relevant issue for Japanese state).


This assumption seems true beyond any doubt as long as one considers the content/teaching of the religions to be irrelevant. But that is also just an assumption.


And here what that representative from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy says is relevant:

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
An Arab Minister, that comes from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy doesn’t know what democracy is, but I have supposed that you are not a fan of the Arab monarchy.
Because he effectively claims that the above assumptions are wrong (in regard to Islam or at least some important denomination thereof; but at first it is realy irrelevant in regard to which of the thousands of religions the assumptions are wrong; a single one already would be a problem for the assumption underlying religious freedom).

Can i prove that the assumptions are wrong? No.
Can i prove them to be true? No.

Are there some events that call the assumption into question? Sorry, yes. For example in the above article about that Arab minister it is mentioned "the DoC [Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany] monitors dozens of mosques". They do not monitor dozens of churches; not dozens of synagogues; not dozens of buddhist learning centers; not dozens of any hindu meeting places (if they have any; which nobody cares about).

And if that basic assumption is wrong, we are screwed. Cause then societies will be between a rock (violating religious freedom) and a hard place (suffering the effects of the presence of a religion not compatible with religious freedom).

I am not aware about any solution or even any approach to verify/disprove the assumption.

Last edited by Carn; 15th November 2017 at 04:00 AM.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2017, 11:48 PM   #304
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Since we are trying to learn lessons here, here comes a pretty difficult lessons or problem for which i do not know an answer or solution:

As you say in the rules of "Western democracies" the concept of some intrusive oversight of what is preached is nearly or completely alien.

These rules were developed in societies with certain religions having a relevant role in society. And they worked and continue to work today. With said certain religions and also with some other religions.

The unspoken, never considered, never realy discussed assumption underlying this:

That religious freedom which worked fine with said certain religions having a relevant role in society, WILL work just as fine with ANY OTHER of the thousands of other religions having a relevant role in society (to clarify, not several thousand other religions have relevant roles in societies; the assumption is that if suddenly a 100 million converted to wiccan religions in Japan, making wiccan religion suddenly relevant in Japan, it would not be any relevant issue for Japanese state).


This assumption seems true beyond any doubt as long as one considers the content/teaching of the religions to be irrelevant. But that is also just an assumption.


And here what that representative from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy says is relevant:



Because he effectively claims that the above assumptions are wrong (in regard to Islam or at least some important denomination thereof; but at first it is realy irrelevant in regard to which of the thousands of religions the assumptions are wrong; a single one already would be a problem for the assumption underlying religious freedom).

Can i prove that the assumptions are wrong? No.
Can i prove them to be true? No.

Are there some events that call the assumption into question? Sorry, yes. For example in the above article about that Arab minister it is mentioned "the DoC [Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany] monitors dozens of mosques". They do not monitor dozens of churches; not dozens of synagogues; not dozens of buddhist learning centers; not dozens of any hindu meeting places (if they have any; which nobody cares about).

And if that basic assumption is wrong, we are screwed. Cause then societies will be between a rock (violating religious freedom) and a hard place (suffering the effects of the presence of a religion not compatible with religious freedom).

I am not aware about any solution or even any approach to verify/disprove the assumption.
You have returned to the beginning: You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system in the name of some vague assumptions based on the supposed efficacy of repression that you cannot justify with any evidence.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the German institution responsible of the surveillance of people suspect to be a threat to the State. It monitors diverse groups and individuals that are suspected to collaboration with the Islamic terrorism, among others. He monitors about 90 mosques among 1.500 existent in Germany —according data of 2010. There is not any evidence that other means more repressive and discriminatory would produce better outcomes in the fight against terrorism. A zero degree of risk is impossible in this matter.

Sincerely, I find that democracy is too serious to be throw away in the name of speculative and vague remarks. Repressive systems have a spurious prestige in some media and are regularly ventilated by demagogic politicians as a mean of win votes by exploiting people’s fears. This is one of the flaws of our democracy.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 09:40 AM   #305
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,200
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yes, but to understand how ideas affect society in any one period or context, you need to make a sound argument grounded in primary sources.
The primary source being what, in this case? I imagine you are referring to religious texts (Koran|hadith, Bible), or to the main text(s) that serve(s) as the source(s) of an ideology (Mein Kampf, Das Capital).

A sound argument is one that not only refers to the text, but to the most common or widespread ways in which the author/authorities/contemporary followers interpret the text(s). Two sources have already been provided for this, the latter being a summary statement and guidelines for action in today's world, signed by a great many countries subscribing in their majorities to the religion.

Quote:
Even so, there is a fundamental problem with this type of analysis - it all too frequently has to relay what someone wrote about what they thought someone thought about what they thought.
Which is what makes the compendium of a variety of modern, educated authorities who subscribe to the faith, writing on its teachings regarding war and peace, so incredibly informative and a proper basis for discussion.

Quote:
The commom assertions about Islam's special inherent violence are the oldest type of anti-Muslim rhetoric there is. They're not based in fact.
This is where you have your hang-up. I'll clue you in on what we've seen so far:

- Ideas drive behavior
- Ideas taken as absolute can, given specific formulations, be taken as authorization and/or sanction for action, including violence.

Pending, in your case, is an examination of the actual content, and its analysis given all the above, including the specific measures proposed by the canon in question regarding its level of authority and the room for others to disagree. Also pending is an examination, discussed in the textbook, of the reaction of Muslim authorities and leading thought leaders to the fall of the last Caliphate following WWI, and the impact of pursuant colonialism and subjection by Western powers in terms of the ideological responses formulated, and pursued since that time.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 17th November 2017 at 09:42 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 09:47 AM   #306
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,200
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You're equivocating fuzzy terms like "ideology" in lieu of honest analysis.
Just in case, from Google:

ideology
ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"

2. archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s)
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 09:48 AM   #307
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
The primary source being what, in this case? I imagine you are referring to religious texts (Koran|hadith, Bible), or to the main text(s) that serve(s) as the source(s) of an ideology (Mein Kampf, Das Capital).
To an extent, but mainly I refer to primary sources dealing with Muslim society throughout history.

Of course, metanarratives are ultimately not that useful, so any analysis will be largely constrained to the period in which it was formulated. It would be very hard to formulate anything but a very narrow thesis sweeping across larger parts of Islamic society. I mean, I don't think a lot of people dispute (though frankly it is not a period I have studied in detail) that Shah Ishmail I's reforms and forcible imposition of Shi'a Islam was driven by the fact that he believed himself to be a messianic figure, but that's not exactly something you can extrapolate.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 17th November 2017 at 09:55 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 10:10 AM   #308
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,200
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
To an extent, but mainly I refer to primary sources dealing with Muslim society throughout history.
Methinks you equivocate. We have enough, with sources, to proceed with respect to the period of 1917 onward, highly relevant to Islam's position, teaching, and behavior in the modern world. Then again, we could pretend things said were not, actions taken were not, policies in place are not.

It's all really simple. Here is my new religion:
Quote:
I, and I alone, am God's only valid representative on Earth, now and for all of history. Nothing before, and nothing after, has any authority. I hereby declare that there are no truths but these truths I speak. The rules I speak were written by my God on every single human heart, so all know them well. Ignorance, therefore, is no excuse. All who question these teachings or my authority will be put to the sword. Nothing else, and I mean nothing, matters. Any who wish to follow must enforce God's will as I, and I alone, understand it. Those who kill in my name or my God's name have a direct ticket to paradise, and all their sins, all, will be forgiven in exchange. Bow, or die!
Mind if I teach this to young people who are in the midst of rampant anomie and alienation? How about highly educated people who have no career prospects and are hungry for position and respect?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:15 AM   #309
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Methinks you equivocate. We have enough, with sources, to proceed with respect to the period of 1917 onward, highly relevant to Islam's position, teaching, and behavior in the modern world. Then again, we could pretend things said were not, actions taken were not, policies in place are not.
And clearly, we can learn everything we need to know about Christianity from studying the years 1540 to 1640.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 03:33 PM   #310
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Just in case, from Google:

ideology
ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"

2. archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s)
Both TubblaBlubba and David Mo already implied that they do not care about common meaning of words, therefore this is useless.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
It's all really simple. Here is my new religion:
You can do better.

Just proclaim that the more the children that are sacrificed for you weep the better and that the hearts that are raised towards you should still beat a last time; just ensure that no conquistadors show up.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 12:53 AM   #311
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Both TubblaBlubba and David Mo already implied that they do not care about common meaning of words, therefore this is useless.
Excuse me, this is your assumption. "Ideology" is a complex word that has no less of ten diverse meanings. See: Eagleton, Terry (1991) Ideology: An Introduction, London-New York, Verso, pp. 1-2.


In any case the concept played a marginal place in our debate. I have referred to it in order to explain what is Amnesty International's position on the issue and why they never would pronounce on a political or religious ideology, excepet in the case that the basic principles of an ideology -or whatever you like to call it- directly attack the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the case of racism or supremacism.

I don't know why you have tried to discredit the whole position of your opponent only because you disagree with the use of a word, even when this disagreement is subsequently explained.

Last edited by David Mo; 18th November 2017 at 01:23 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 01:09 AM   #312
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know why you have tried to discredit the whole position of your opponent only because you disagree with the use of a word, even when this disagreement is subsequently explained.
Cause it happens constantly. I say X, you read Y; attempts to highlight, that i said X, because the words i used have a certain meaning, is mostly useless in part because you seem to care little what the meaning of words is and mostly prescribe the words other people use the meaning that you prefer (instead of prescribing the meaning the other side likely used).

With "ideology" it was just most obvious.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 01:21 AM   #313
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Cause it happens constantly. I say X, you read Y; attempts to highlight, that i said X, because the words i used have a certain meaning, is mostly useless in part because you seem to care little what the meaning of words is and mostly prescribe the words other people use the meaning that you prefer (instead of prescribing the meaning the other side likely used).

With "ideology" it was just most obvious.
How people use a word -if we know how this is- doesn't prevent that someone wants to select a more accurate meaning. In any case, the problem doesn't continue if this meaning is declared. And this was the case with my explanation of AI's position.

Maybe you are not used to debate with complex concepts and you finds them not usual. But, after my explanation, I don't know what is your problem.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 01:44 AM   #314
Sparhafoc
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: กรุงเทพ
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?

My take on this is that there is criticism of Islam the ideology, and criticism of Muslims within the context of the crackpot delusional wet-dream of world dominating dark-skinned foreigners who want to murder us good people in our beds.

The former isn't racism, the latter is akin to racism and is sourced in the same fear of the other.

People on both sides make mistakes about the meanings and motivations of people who argue from the other side.
Sparhafoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 01:48 AM   #315
Sparhafoc
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: กรุงเทพ
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
If you are correct it would be dumb beyond the wildest madness to let any Muslims immigrate if the immigration could be in light of international and national law be avoided.

Because the inner christian bloodshed was in those hundreds of years horrible and if Islam copies that process the inner muslim bloodshed will be such, that historically ISIS will probably not register much; and anyone sane would do everything to avoid the risk of being drawn into an islamic 30-year war (*), for which the risk will increase the more muslims there are in a country.

(*In the historic 30 year war every weapon available was used; no reason in a serious bloodshed with in part religious motivation this would not be done today)
A pretty good example, methinks.

This clearly has nothing to do with the content of the religious beliefs known as Islam, but is wholly motivated by fear of the foreigner, and consequently would accurately be conceived of as akin to racism.
Sparhafoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 04:19 AM   #316
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by Sparhafoc View Post
A pretty good example, methinks.

This clearly has nothing to do with the content of the religious beliefs known as Islam, but is wholly motivated by fear of the foreigner, and consequently would accurately be conceived of as akin to racism.
If you had carfully read, what i wrote, you would have noticed that the motivating issue would be a fear of a rehash of the religious wars known from Christianity in Islam.

How can you then write, that it would be WHOLLY motivated by fear of foreigner, when the words written EXPLICITELY speak about fear of potential future developments within a religion?

If you written "also" or something, maybe your point would have any validity.

@David Mo

As i said, you repeatedly commit that error.
For example above you said about one post of me:
"You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system"

That has little or nothing to do with what i have written, at least applaing the usual meaning of words to the text of the post. Probably again you using some "more accurate" (*) meaning of some words and therefore thinking your description of my post is correct.

(* Which BTW in my book is wrongly worded; what you actually seem to aim at is "better" definitions and not "more accurate"; "more accurate" only yield a clearer definition what is meant, but what you want is a definition that more closely fits the phenomenon perceived by you in the real world)
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 07:28 AM   #317
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,651
Originally Posted by Sparhafoc View Post
My take on this is that there is criticism of Islam the ideology,
This is still complicated by the nebulous natures of "Islam" and "Ideology", however. Islam means different things to different people. I think it's certainly sensible to discuss concepts in Islam, sects, traditions, etc, but one should really take care with what kind of value judgments they make. There tends to be a lack of appreciation for context and a tend to beg the question among those who criticize religion, unfortunately.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 12:14 AM   #318
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
@David Mo

As i said, you repeatedly commit that error.
For example above you said about one post of me:
"You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system"

That has little or nothing to do with what i have written, at least applaing the usual meaning of words to the text of the post. Probably again you using some "more accurate" (*) meaning of some words and therefore thinking your description of my post is correct.
I don't know which "some words" you refer to. You have began your comments defending some anti-Islam politicians, blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example). I say that this is contrary to Human Rights and the principles of our Western democracies. I also say that to go against democracy in the name of security is very dangerous.
This is not a disagreement on words. You know what I am saying. This is a disagreement about values and facts.
The only disagreement about words between us was about the meaning of “ideology”.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
(* Which BTW in my book is wrongly worded; what you actually seem to aim at is "better" definitions and not "more accurate"; "more accurate" only yield a clearer definition what is meant, but what you want is a definition that more closely fits the phenomenon perceived by you in the real world)
I don't understand what “BTW” means nor what book you have written(?).

Last edited by David Mo; 19th November 2017 at 12:15 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 01:25 AM   #319
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,335
By The Way = BTW
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 07:01 AM   #320
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,298
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know which "some words" you refer to.
...blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)
...
This is not a disagreement on words. You know what I am saying.
But you do not know what i am saying, as i never did this:
"blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)"

And i cannot say, which words these are, as it is you who reads the above from my texts; i cannot identify which sentences, words and phrases make you think, that i did the above; but whichever they are, you understand them differently than i understand them.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
nor what book you have written(?).
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+my+book
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.