Hostage situation in Sydney, Australia

[ktgrok]

I agree with all of this.

 

 

I don't agree with this, and partly because this argument relies on a no true scotsman fallacy and is therefore flawed from the beginning. This argument presumes that your studies of Islam are the correct ones, and that those who pursue a more extreme view are wrong. It's asking us to trust you to be the Real Muslim, which is no more possible for me than to trust anyone else is a Real Christian, Real Republican, Real Homeschooler, or Real Parent. It sets up a system where the only measurement available is the one against the standard of the individual. The problem is that other individuals do the same thing, and there exists no objective measure against which to determine accuracy or credibility.

 

I understand you've studied your faith, but so to have others. Furthermore, they use the same methodology you do - read certain texts, read analysis of these texts, interpret personal experience according to certain standards that one determines to be reliable, for personal reasons. Memories, emotions, education, internal and external variables all contribute to one's conclusions in such matters. You are no more "accurate" than any genuine believer of Islam, even if your beliefs do correspond with much of the population of western Muslims today. It just means your beliefs are more popular, more familiar, more respected than those who express an extreme version of the same faith. To paraphrase BLA5/lulu, extremism just means one is more rigid in the faith than me, heretic means one is not as serious as me. The problem is, everyone gets to be the "me," even those we consider extremist. If we're expected to take your word for it, why are we not expected to take someone else's, kwim? Just to say, one doesn't have to be a committed believer to understand the beliefs promoted by a faith, and if we get to pick apart negin's argument, we should get to pick apart mine, and even yours. But truly I mean no offence.

 

I'm going to disagree. Unlike in the arguments arguing over interpretations that are considered problamatic in Christianity, what she is talking about is pretty straightforward. Secular scholars have the same thing to say that she is saying...there is nothing in the traditional Muslim faith, or in the Koran, that agrees with what these people are doing. When my secular university religion professors are saying that it becomes less of "my interpretation versus yours". These were people without skin in the game, teaching the history of Islam. (and this was pre 9/11, so it wasn't during the kind of awareness we have now). 

[mommaduck]

I'm confused by your response to me. Did I miss something? I was responding to that specific poster who did say a "Muslim in the full black gear" (post #70).

 

No, it wasn't towards you. I was reading backwards and was just surprised that anyone (here) thought that. Unfortunately, there are people that ignorant and assuming. But, no, I did not think you were...your post just brought it forward.

[Stacia]

my statement is that the politics of these groups tend to consist of a leader who may be educated (ex: I've heard the leader of ISIS has some study behind him) and knows that this is wrong but justifies it to himself

 

I have to wonder -- sometimes I think the charismatic leaders of extremist groups (of any creed) really DO believe what they are promoting & find ways to back that up using 'factual' texts. This, imo, is what gives them much power among those who choose to follow them & make people so devoted to 'the cause' (whatever the cause may be).

 

I really think every religious text has & can be debated endlessly. And, that with the will to bend interpretations, pretty much any one who wants to can find the interpretation that will match his/her belief, which the person can then present as 'justification'.

 

Isn't that the type of religious division (w/in the same religion as well as among 'competing' religions) that has gone on since time immemorial? I don't think there has ever been a period in the history of humans where there was religious agreement among all.

[albeto.]

nevermind, but thank you for the replies. I appreciate them sincerely.

 

:)

[ktgrok]

I have to wonder -- sometimes I think the charismatic leaders of extremist groups (of any creed) really DO believe what they are promoting & find ways to back that up using 'factual' texts. This, imo, is what gives them much power among those who choose to follow them & make people so devoted to 'the cause' (whatever the cause may be).

 

I really think every religious text has & can be debated endlessly. And, that with the will to bend interpretations, pretty much any one who wants to can find the interpretation that will match his/her belief, which the person can then present as 'justification'.

 

Isn't that the type of religious division (w/in the same religion as well as among 'competing' religions) that has gone on since time immemorial? I don't think there has ever been a period in the history of humans where there was religious agreement among all.

 

Yes and no. I mean, yes, there are all different versions of say, Christianity. But none claim that Jesus was a goat. Some stuff just isn't in there, and no amount of weird interpretive bias will put it in there. Some stuff is just straightforward. The rules about just war are pretty straightforward in Islam.

[Catwoman]

I don't want to derail the current discussion, but I do want to take a second to send Negin my condolences on the horrific loss of her family members. I had no idea. I am so sorry. :(

[umsami]

Heidi, thank you so much for clarifying this.

Anti-Semitism has been on the rise everywhere, including among the neo-Nazis in Germany. 

 

Yes, anti-semitism is on the rise in Germany.  That's a well known and sad fact.  It doesn't mean that Islamophobia isn't very real either.  One of the most troubling things is how socially acceptable open hatred of Muslims is in this country.  At least every other month, if not more often, an elected official says something pretty horrifying about Muslims.  I can't see them saying it about another religious group, but they feel no fear in saying it about us.  

 

But using FBI.gov as justification or implying that hate crimes against Muslims is not real is not accurate either.  It's not a sum game.  It's not a contest to be the most hated, or gosh, I hope it isn't.  

 

There is often a rise in crimes against Muslims and crimes against Jews.  They tend to be linked, actually.  Hate groups usually hate both.  White supremacists hate both.  Anti-Semitic incidents are up 35% this year in NYC.  Anti-Muslim hate crimes are up 50%.  But the NYPD says there were only 15 incidents.  Do I believe that?  Having lived in Brooklyn, and in a city of 8.5 million, only 15 incidents?  No, I don't.  Why?  The FBI notes only 1,223 incidents for the entire year, country-wide.  Does that seem accurate to you?  Roughly three per day, anywhere in the US.  We have three women killed per day, each and every day, by their domestic partners.  We lose five kids each and every day to child abuse and neglect.  Yet somehow hate crimes against anybody regarding religion...anywhere in the US...are less than 3 per day?  Obviously there are severe under-reporting issues.

 

The stats for FBI.gov come from local police departments.  I know of very few Muslims who would walk into their local police department to report a hate crime.  Why?  There has been a severe lack of trust after the profiling cases in NYC....the mosque infiltrations...the attempts to frame congregants...etc.  The FBI was found to use trainers who had an anti-Islam bias.  Also remember many Muslims are first generation immigrants coming from countries where one simply does not go to the police to complain....doing so, can land one in jail.  Regarding under-reporting:

 

"According to the LACCHR'S 2003 report, many immigrant groups including Asians, Middle Easterners and Latinos, are likely to under-report hate crimes against them for several cultural reasons, such as reluctance to contact authorities, lack of familiarity with hate crime laws, etc."

If you ask the ADL, there were 927 anti-Semitic incidents in the US in 2012.  Do you think that's accurate? For the entire country? I doubt it.  The ADL acknowledges anti-Muslim bigotry as a problem, BTW.  

CAIR's report on hate crimes for the same time period is here. They did not independently track incidents. 

The NYTimes said, "While Muslims make up 1 percent of the population, they are victims in 14 percent of religious discrimination cases.These range from homicides and mosque burnings to job, school and zoning law abuses, according to the Justice Department.†

If you look at Gallup polls on who Americans hate or who are discriminated against...."In the U.S., about one-half of nationally representative samples of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews agree that in general, most Americans are prejudiced toward Muslim Americans. Specifically, 66% of Jewish Americans and 60% of Muslim Americans say that Americans in general are prejudiced toward Muslim Americans."

From the same poll, "Muslims (48%) are more likely than Americans of other major religious groups to say they, personally, have experienced racial or religious discrimination in the past year. Muslim Americans are more than twice as likely as U.S. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to say they experienced such discrimination in the past year."

 

I'd also question the severity of the hate crimes that are noted.  We have had mosques fire-bombed, another ex., and another. and yet another.)  Just a week or so ago, a 15 year old boy was run over in front of his mosque in Kansas City by a car that compared the Qur'an/Islam to Ebola.  (It's still not officially a hate crime, as far as I know...the FBI is investigating.).  

 

A person was shot at a mosque in Coachella, CA.  The Sikh massacre in Wisconsin is still believed to be because of confusion...the shooter thought they were Muslims.  

 

A woman pushed a Hindu man, Sunado Sen, onto the tracks of the subway where he was killed.  The killer said, "“I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims. Ever since 2001 when they put down the Twin Towers I’ve been beating them up.† 

 

We still get graffiti, and windows of people's cars being smashed (most recently two weeks or so ago in Minnesota.)  The fact that mosques have trouble being built in places like TN, are not counted as hate crimes.  The fact that elected officials often spout anti-Islamic hate remarks are not counted.  The fact that anti-shariah crap laws still get passed, are not counted.   People put anti-Islam ads on public transportation.  It's free speech, so what.  

 

BTW, some of the comments of the "brilliant' Sam Harris...

2012  "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it." 

 

2005 "In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews." 

As he advocated profiling me, my kids, my husband, excuse me if I'm not a fan.  As he basically lies or is too lazy to do any research...he basically negates the numerous people, governments, Muslim religious leaders, and others who came out against the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, excuse me if I'm not a fan.  

 

I don't doubt or negate anti-Semitism...but implying that Islamophobia is not a very real problem in this country is simply wrong...and dangerous, too, IMHO.  No different than ignoring all the very public anti-Semitism prior to Kristallnacht and the Holocaust.  Imagine how Muslims feel when elected officials routinely demonize them?  Crazy Ahmadinejad may have been a Holocaust denier, but I don't personally know any Muslims in the US who are not very much aware of the very real and tragic death of 11 million people from it.  

[Negin]

I don't want to derail the current discussion, but I do want to take a second to send Negin my condolences on the horrific loss of her family members. I had no idea. I am so sorry. :(

As always, you are so kind and caring. I cannot even begin to tell you how much I appreciate it.  :grouphug:   :grouphug:   :grouphug:

[Mom-ninja.]

Muslima and Muslimah are both correct transliterations.  I only learned this a few weeks ago, but basically, it's a difference between the transliteration forms popular in England and the US.  I think I see Muslimah more commonly, but both are correct :)

Is this for women? or for both genders? 

 

 

 One of the most troubling things is how socially acceptable open hatred of Muslims is in this country.  At least every other month, if not more often, an elected official says something pretty horrifying about Muslims.  I can't see them saying it about another religious group, but they feel no fear in saying it about us.  

 

  

Try being an atheist. They are actually *laws* in the US that discriminate against us. Ever pay attention to what elected officials say about atheists? Let's see, our former president said atheists are not true American citizens.

 

The only reason I am not harassed (as you are) in public is because there is no outward sign that I am atheist. That means that I get to hear all the comments made about atheists in my presence because they have no clue that one is among them. The vast majority of atheists in the US do not tell people because we know what will happen. 

 

I'm not trying to undermine your experience. Just pointing out that Muslims are not the only group in which it is acceptable to openly hate in the US. As far as I know there are no laws banning Muslims from doing things in this country as there are for atheists. Muslims have not been openly spoken of negatively by a US president cause that would be political suicide for him, but that is not so if he says something derogatory about atheists. 

 

Hey, if there was a Muslim presidential candidate running against an atheist candidate, who do you think would be elected?  ;) That would be interesting. 

 

(Please note I'm not being snarky at all. I'm only trying to say that it can be difficult being an atheist in this country as well so I have a level of understanding of what it means to not be one of the accepted group.)

[Stacia]

Per mom-ninja's post -- seemingly, here in the US, we have freedom of religion. What we still seem to be working on, though, is freedom from religion.

[Negin]

:driving:

[umsami]

Is this for women? or for both genders? 

 

Muslima(h)...is just for women.  Muslim is men...but I think it also works as a default for both or a mixed group.  Usually, the only people in the US who I've seen use the term Muslimah are actual Muslims.

 

Try being an atheist. They are actually *laws* in the US that discriminate against us. Ever pay attention to what elected officials say about atheists? Let's see, our former president said atheists are not true American citizens.

 

The only reason I am not harassed (as you are) in public is because there is no outward sign that I am atheist. That means that I get to hear all the comments made about atheists in my presence because they have no clue that one is among them. The vast majority of atheists in the US do not tell people because we know what will happen. 

 

Yes, true. I live in the South.  I've heard some things said about atheists/agnostics which shock me, but what I find even more baffling is that if I ask Christian family members if they truly believe that Jesus had a virgin birth....no male involved period...no perhaps soldier raping Mary or what not....they say, "no, of course not."  If I ask them if they have any doubts about their faith, many say yes.    Most people of faith I know have gone through periods of doubt and disbelief.  So why the shock? Why the lack of empathy?

 

I also know that if I don't wear my hijab, I hear all sorts of things to my face with a sort of "thank God you and I are both Christians wink wink nudge nudge".  Of course, I have relatives who forward stuff all the time about evil Muslim plots, and seem to forget I'm Muslim (or don't care.)  

 

I'm not trying to undermine your experience. Just pointing out that Muslims are not the only group in which it is acceptable to openly hate in the US. As far as I know there are no laws banning Muslims from doing things in this country as there are for atheists. Muslims have not been openly spoken of negatively by a US president cause that would be political suicide for him, but that is not so if he says something derogatory about atheists. 

 

Hey, if there was a Muslim presidential candidate running against an atheist candidate, who do you think would be elected?  ;) That would be interesting.   Silly, we already have a Muslim president from Kenya!   Honestly, I think the atheist has the better chance...but just keep it in the closet.  At least join the UU church. ;)  I do, however, think that in 10-15 years, being an atheist will not be such a big deal.  It's too easy for people to check out doubts/questions about their faith online....to come into things that were hidden before.  I know quite a few cultural Muslims.

 

(Please note I'm not being snarky at all. I'm only trying to say that it can be difficult being an atheist in this country as well so I have a level of understanding of what it means to not be one of the accepted group.)

 

[Negin]

:drool:

[Negin]

My respect for atheists (I myself am not one) continues to increase, thanks in part to their "brilliant" minds: Sam Harris, for example. 

I do believe that atheism will continue to rise throughout the world as people will feel more and more repulsed by extremism, corruption, hypocrisy, etc.

Not to say that all religious people, or even most, are that way. Not at all. But many, I humbly believe, will feel turned off by the whole thing. I'm seeing it all the time. When people have negative experiences in any way, shape, or form; some (not all), will turn their backs on religion altogether. 

[umsami]

Per mom-ninja's post -- seemingly, here in the US, we have freedom of religion. What we still seem to be working on, though, is freedom from religion.

 

Sadly, I think were going backwards in that area.  I hope things will change, though.  I really don't care about the 10 commandments being posted in a court house.  To me, that's more of a historical representation of older laws.  I do worry when religion and religious beliefs affect policy, laws, school textbooks, and the like.   Even homeschooling, it seems like it can be difficult to find secular curricula.  Not impossible, but just not easy.  I think it should be the other way around.  

 

I'll just add with all of those Shariah laws, etc.  the Muslims I know came to this country to avoid religious law.  Do you think Moms really want to live with Shariah law that depending on the interpretation might say that the father always gets custody of boys over 2, and girls over 10? (Depends on the country.)  There's no concept of visitation either.    

 

Does anybody who has a daughter want to live in a country where some people think your daughter is marriageable material at 9?  Even if not practiced, I don't want anything remotely on the books because guaranteed that means some poor girl is going to be abused with that as justification.  

 

Do you think couples want Muslim divorces where a token amount written in a marriage contract (Nikkah)...or sometimes a very large amount.... is supposed to serve as alimony, even after a 20+ year marriage with multiple kids?  

 

Do I want to live in a country where people who commit adultery can be killed or gay people can be imprisoned or killed? Absolutely not.  

 

I suppose the only good think for non-Muslims is that in theory, shariah laws should only apply to Muslims.  In Egypt, for example, Muslims can divorce, but for the Copts it is very difficult.  Social issues there are determined by one's faith.  

[Negin]

:drool5:

[Stacia]

I guess what bothers me is that throughout human history, many of the most heinous crimes & atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of religion. It's wonderfully academic to argue that the major world religions are peaceful & it's wonderful for followers of any religion to aspire to that (& I certainly hope & am heartened by those who do & are), but the reality is that religion has & is used as a means for control, power, &/or fear in many cases. And, the marketing of such works pretty effectively.

 

I'm agnostic. Or perhaps I'm an "Imagine-ist"...

 

JOHN LENNON
"Imagine"

 

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

 

[Negin]

I guess what bothers me is that throughout human history, many of the most heinous crimes & atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of religion. It's wonderfully academic to argue that the major world religions are peaceful & it's wonderful for followers of any religion to aspire to that (& I certainly hope & am heartened by those who do & are), but the reality is that religion has & is used as a means for control, power, &/or fear in many cases. And, the marketing of such works pretty effectively.

 

I'm agnostic. Or perhaps I'm an "Imagine-ist"...

That is one of my favorite songs ever! :D 

What you say is pretty much exactly what Sam Harris has been saying also. I'm halfway through the clip that Hornblower shared and have also been watching some other clips of his. Using religion for control, power, and fear - disgusting, to say the least. 

[Word Nerd]

All of the heinous crimes and atrocities have been perpetrated by humans, and there isn't a religion (or lack thereof), race, culture, nationality, gender, or other group that is not capable of great destruction, violence, and terror. Pissing contests about whose group is the worst or best are rather absurd and pointless.

[Stacia]

Slightly OT, but perhaps pertaining to the agnostic/atheist comments...

 

Not that I agree with everything Bill Maher says, but when I watched his 'documentary' Religulous a few years ago, I found it quite interesting.

 

Caveat -- Many will most likely find it or portions of it offensive, especially if you are religious. (I saw it in a packed theater & would say half the audience laughed & the other half was outraged.)

 

It's not utterly comprehensive (not even close), nor is it impartial; he visits people from 'popular' religions, as well as talking with some who are from 'fringe' groups; it is heavily biased toward skepticism of all religion. In fact, he makes a very strong closing statement to that effect & a plea for agnostics/atheists to stand up in the face of religion & assert their presence too. I do think he sometimes asks some interesting questions & I found it quite fascinating to listen to the people he interviewed, all of whom showed (imo) that there really is no one, single interpretation of religion.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Reviews for Religulous were generally positive. The film received a rating of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes based on 149 reviews,^[27] and a score of 56 out of 100 at Metacritic based on 31 reviews.^[28]Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film a rating of three and a half out of four stars, and wrote: "I report faithfully that I laughed frequently. You may very well hate it, but at least you've been informed. Perhaps you could enjoy the material about other religions, and tune out when yours is being discussed. That's only human nature."

 

[albeto.]

Why the lack of empathy?

 

It's not lacking, it's just directed heavenward.

 

My respect for atheists (I myself am not one) continues to increase, thanks in part to their "brilliant" minds: Sam Harris, for example. 

I do believe that atheism will continue to rise throughout the world as people will feel more and more repulsed by extremism, corruption, hypocrisy, etc.

Not to say that all religious people, or even most, are that way. Not at all. But many, I humbly believe, will feel turned off by the whole thing. I'm seeing it all the time. When people have negative experiences in any way, shape, or form; some (not all), will turn their backs on religion altogether.

 

The "nones" is a growing group in the US ("nones" referring to which religious affiliation one identifies in polls). I think this is a very good example of why. Violent and destructive actions by members of peaceful religions is harder to ignore in a world where people know in real time what is happening all over the nation, and in most western societies anyway. Education is another reason, I suspect. When an answer to a question does not require faith but can be observed or worked out independently of personal belief, religious answers loose their credibility. More and more people are seeing this.

 

Sadly, I think were going backwards in that area.  I hope things will change, though.  I really don't care about the 10 commandments being posted in a court house.  To me, that's more of a historical representation of older laws.

I have just as much problem with the 10 commandments on public land used by my secular government as I would if an Islamic version were posted. Government offices should be a religiously neutral zone, not a pulpit, subtle as it may be.

 

I'll just add with all of those Shariah laws, etc.  the Muslims I know came to this country to avoid religious law.  Do you think Moms really want to live with Shariah law that depending on the interpretation might say that the father always gets custody of boys over 2, and girls over 10? (Depends on the country.)  There's no concept of visitation either.    

 

Does anybody who has a daughter want to live in a country where some people think your daughter is marriageable material at 9?  Even if not practiced, I don't want anything remotely on the books because guaranteed that means some poor girl is going to be abused with that as justification.  

 

Do you think couples want Muslim divorces where a token amount written in a marriage contract (Nikkah)...or sometimes a very large amount.... is supposed to serve as alimony, even after a 20+ year marriage with multiple kids?  

 

Do I want to live in a country where people who commit adultery can be killed or gay people can be imprisoned or killed? Absolutely not.

Standing on the outside, I'm flabbergasted to see the plethora of examples of people who support policies that undermine their own well-being. To answer your question, yes, clearly there are many women who support the very infrastructure that oppresses them, Muslims among them.

 

I suppose the only good think for non-Muslims is that in theory, shariah laws should only apply to Muslims.  In Egypt, for example, Muslims can divorce, but for the Copts it is very difficult.  Social issues there are determined by one's faith.

One of the consequences of getting information rapidly is the overwhelming amount of information. I see stories coming out of the UK where there are Sharia zones, if you will, and non-muslims are "punished" for breaking Sharia law. Shocking. Absolutely barbaric, in my opinion. I have no idea if this behavior is on the rise or I'm just now aware of it, but your good news isn't particularly comforting to me. I'd much rather see a divorce between law and religion, you know, like a truly secular nation.

[umsami]

I thought that when one adheres to a religion, one could not cherry-pick as to which laws they wish to follow and which not. I'm quite pleasantly surprised. I'm not being snarky either. 

 

I know of few people who believe all the tenants of one's religion without any questions.  I know plenty of Christians who doubt much of the Bible, but still consider themselves good Christians.  I know plenty of Muslims who take issue with the age of Aisha at her marriage, or the number of Prophet Muhammad's wives after Khadija's death, or what not.  I cannot think of one Jewish person I know who would ever have their daughter marry her rapist, regardless of what the OT says.  That does not make her non-Jewish or even a bad Jew. She's not bad if she doesn't cover her hair or wear a tichel.  For many Muslim women, covering is about fashion...for some teen girls I know, it's an easy way to be viewed as "good" to gain more freedom from overprotective parents.   My guess is that in any church, synagogue, or mosque there is a good portion who are agnostic and even atheist.  There are lots of reasons why people go to "church" beyond faith.  For some it's social.  For others it's just what is done...the right thing to do.  For others, even if they don't believe, it's familiar...it's what they grew up with...it's comforting even if they don't believe everything or even one bit of it.  

 

For Shariah laws, it's open to interpretation.  The problem is (IMHO) that a lot of people doing the interpretation have their own biases and reasons for said interpretation (no different than law makers anywhere, I suppose.)  Of course, in Islam, you also get that lovely bunch who want to live as if it's the 7th century, which doesn't help either.   In some ways it's good that Islam doesn't have a head guy like the Pope.  In some ways, it's bad--can give one person too much power.  Would depend on the person.

 

There are Progressive Muslims.  There are Quran-only Muslims who reject the hadith as basically just a giant game of telephone.  There are Sufis.  I know Muslims who drink alcohol.  Faith is very personal.  While to the outside, there may be just Sunni and Shi'a Muslims....or maybe add in Ahmadiyya and Ismaili....in reality, every person who identifies as one of those believes something slightly different.  They accept certain things as true, and others....they have their doubts.  There are Muslims who believe that when Muhammad made his night pilgrimage to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, it was a dream.  There are those who believe he really truly went.  There are those who believe that God really did flood the earth like in the Noah story.  There are those who believe it's just a story, or it refers to a smaller scale flood, or it refers to an earlier flood epic like Gilgamesh.  I would never flout non-orthodox beliefs in say Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Iran.  To do so, would be stupid.  I'm not going to get into an argument about Islam with the Boko Haram folks either.   But I have had Yemeni, Saudi, and Iranian friends whose beliefs would not be viewed as acceptable, but still love their countries and their faith.  

 

I work in domestic violence and child abuse prevention within the Muslim community.  The attitudes/beliefs towards domestic violence, when it's allowed, etc... depend a lot on the country where the people came from.  In certain countries, women actually agree with the fact that their husbands have a right to hit them if they say burn the dinner.   Yet,  there are numerous scholars who've gone out of their way to point out why beating your wife is not allowed in Islam...regardless of 4:34 in the Qur'an.  What is encouraging is that we're finally seeing laws enacting in Muslim countries which are criminalizing domestic violence.  We're seeing the first shelters be built. That's huge. In most Muslim countries, domestic violence was viewed as a family thing...private....don't involve the police.  It was viewed that way in the US up until 20-30 years ago too.  The Internet (I think) is helping change things further.

[albeto.]

I thought that when one adheres to a religion, one could not cherry-pick as to which laws they wish to follow and which not. I'm quite pleasantly surprised. I'm not being snarky either. 

 

 I don't think it's a matter of picking and choosing which arguments are most attractive, but determining which theological arguments are most persuasive in conjunction with everything else one experiences and knows. It's why the No True Scotsman fallacy is impossible to avoid in these Abrahamic religions.

[albeto.]

I guess what bothers me is that throughout human history, many of the most heinous crimes & atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of religion. It's wonderfully academic to argue that the major world religions are peaceful & it's wonderful for followers of any religion to aspire to that (& I certainly hope & am heartened by those who do & are), but the reality is that religion has & is used as a means for control, power, &/or fear in many cases. And, the marketing of such works pretty effectively.

 

I'm agnostic. Or perhaps I'm an "Imagine-ist"...

 

I think to be fair, it's difficult to find many political agendas that are not intimately intertwined with religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are the historical means by which the natural world is explained. Weather patterns, agricultural success or failure, security of society, allocation of resources, and all kinds of things have been explained through the lens of various superstitious beliefs. To say many of the most heinous crimes and atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of religion is to say most of the heinous crimes and atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of one's understanding of the world and their role within it.

 

You might find The God Virus an interesting read. It explains how religious cultural memes have maintained a sense of relevance in society.

 

ETA: You might also find these videos interesting:

Professor Sapolsky Explains the Origin of Religion Part 1/2

Professor Sapolsky Explains the Origin of Religion Part 2/2

 

I add this because I think while it's tempting to identify religion as "the enemy," it's not particularly accurate. It's a tool, and a morally neutral one at that. But as a tool, like you said, it can be used for all kinds of terrible atrocities. In my opinion knowing the details of something helps to demystify it, it helps to look at it more objectively, to understand it more accurately, and that allows us to respond more objectively. In our response to things like this kidnapping in Sydney, I think the more we can resist the temptation to identify religion within the "good guy / bad guy" meme and tackle it objectively, the more effectively we can prevent such trauma in the future.

[Stacia]

I think to be fair, it's difficult to find many political agendas that are not intimately intertwined with religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are the historical means by which the natural world is explained. Weather patterns, agricultural success or failure, security of society, allocation of resources, and all kinds of things have been explained through the lens of various superstitious beliefs. To say many of the most heinous crimes and atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of religion is to say most of the heinous crimes and atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of one's understanding of the world and their role within it.

 

You might find The God Virus an interesting read. It explains how religious cultural memes have maintained a sense of relevance in society.

 

I agree that religious belief has been used as an explanation & source for many events. I specifically pointed out crimes & atrocities since that referred somewhat to what had been discussed previously.

 

Thanks for the rec. I'll have to check it out.

 

[Negin]

 

:drool5:

[Negin]

:lol:

[Negin]

:glare:

[Negin]

:lol:

[Amira]

Sadie can think anyone's beliefs are crazy without being offensive, especially when she says many religious people are inspired by their religions to be better people. Her words were not offensive.

[Negin]

:lol:

[VinNY]

I had to look up bollocks, never heard the expression. Vulgar slang (Brit) the testicles :closedeyes: ; used to express contempt, annoyance or defiance.

 

 

 

 

[VinNY]

What the hey is FFS?

[Stacia]

What the hey is FFS?

 

Google it. I had to.

 

Even though my sister swears like a sailor, I was still a little surprised. :huh:

[Negin]

:drool5:

[Negin]

:lol:

[Negin]

:lurk5:

[albeto.]

Wow. I'm an atheist, who is no great fan of any religion and who struggles to understand why people believe anything on the basis of any holy book - but I am not OK with profiling people by religion as the 'brilliant' Sam Harris suggests. I think most people on this board will know I'm not really a respect-religion girl.

 

I can't believe I'm pointing this out but atheists can also be extreme, corrupt, hypocritical...

 

I don't have to be a fan of Islam ( Or Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism etc ) to refuse to buy in to this Islamophobia.

 

The issues behind extremist violence are VERY complex, and have strong political and cultural aspects, as well as religious ones.

 

As far as I am concerned, atheists or indeed any other person with a history of being 'profiled and persecuted' should have MORE empathy with the plight of Muslim men and women who suffer at the hands of not only extremists but also democratic governments via drone strikes, and the attitudes of those who persist in equating the person with their holy book, or cherry picked version thereof.

 

FFS.

 

 

One of the benefits of a secular argument is that truth or knowledge is not expected to be accepted by virtue of faith. The evidence of one's arguments lend credibility to the argument or not. For the sake of argument (and because I'm completely unprepared to take a side), let's assume Harris' argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We'd know this because it doesn't conform to the evidence we have, say, the data showing how many attacks are made in airports and the religious/racial demographic of the perpetrators of these crimes. I'm guessing off the top of my head there's not the evidence to suggest this religious profiling is necessary, but then, I don't believe the security standards in airports today are effective or justified, so there's that. But back to Harris and his argument. We might conclude that his argument is due in part to a cognitive bias. Perhaps he simply cannot accept certain facts, and so his brain is making conclusions around them. We would see this by virtue of the evidence to the contrary.

 

This is in direct opposition to what religious proponents offer - truth and knowledge based on reception of information through supernatural means (whether a written message hand delivered by a god or angel or a subtle thought or idea). This is what the bulk of Harris' arguments focus on. His contributions to society and philosophy are unrelated to his arguments regarding religious profiling. It's the bulk of his contributions that are identified as "brilliant," I suspect. To suggest he's not empathetic or that atheists should have more empathy than anyone else is to impose a character-ideal on the messenger, rather than address the facts of the argument. Even if Harris were a complete and utter jackass, his arguments would stand or fall on the merits of the evidence that support them. In this way, we are free to accept or dismiss components of what he says without needing to rely on some kind of damage control for his greater argument - religious thinking is unreliable and inaccurate and problematic because of it.

 

We're encouraged to no conflate harmful behavior or hateful ideas with Muslims in general, "to say that behavior is in fact a part of Islam is grossly incorrect and unfair." I agree with this. I also would encourage you to resist the temptation of thinking of atheism as a belief system (earlier you listed it along other religions, as if it belonged in that category). It's not, it's very simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Each individual will differ in their beliefs, but that should be separated from the concept of atheism. I think trying to identify the bigger villain or the group that faces more persecution is a straw-man here, it's an attempt to appeal to the emotions (which are understandable, but not helpful here). No doubt blame and sympathy can be shared all around. 

[albeto.]

They know which side their bread is buttered on. 

Quoted for truth.

[hornblower]

I don't like blanket condemnations of religions, esp in a forum like this where we know members of that faith (whether practicing or cultural or somewhere in between) are reading. I'm atheist and I might think many things and I might even say them in different places, but it's not nice here...

 

I also don't like dissing of authors for that matter - esp when it's clear that some people in the thread admire the author's ideas. It seems unnecessarily combative. Critique his specific ideas or comments instead...

 

BUT, I think we can critique certain ideas, or tenets or interpretations or actions without making it personal. It does require us to take care and do it cautiously, kwim?

 

It just seems like some of us are a bit raw and on edge. Free hugs to anyone who needs them !

[albeto.]

I don't have to be a fan of Islam ( Or Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism etc ) to refuse to buy in to this Islamophobia.

 

 

Liberals - I am one - can still criticise aspects of any faith that are regressive, without damning every follower of that religion.

 

 

Harris said, "And the crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of ‘Islamophobia,’ where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people. That’s intellectually ridiculous."

 

There doesn't exist the same expectation of being labeled Christophobic or antisemitic for a critic to argue against these religions' theological arguments as there is the expectation for being identified as Islamophobic for criticizing Islam. It should go without saying that you don't have to be a fan of Islam but can resist any pull towards being bigoted towards Muslims personally. And yet, you make this distinction (and assume others don't?). Harris is pointing out that this conflation is made often enough in liberal circles to make it noteworthy.

[*Lulu*]

Liberals - I am one - can still criticise aspects of any faith that are regressive, without damning every follower of that religion.

 

For example, I think Christianity is bollocks. Do I therefore damn every Christian ? NO. There are many, many Christians who are caring, lovely, wonderful people inspired by the words they read in their Holy Book.

 

It stands to reason that although I also think Islam is bollocks, there are many Muslims who are caring, lovely, wonderful people inspired by the words they read in their Holy Book.

 

There are also Muslims who are liberal and progressive. Ironically, those getting a hard time on this thread fall into that category.

As a Christian, I do not find this offensive.

 

There are a good many things within the Christian church that I say FFS about.

[Deee]

I'm sure Sadie doesn't need me to defend her, but I'm going to weigh in anyway. For most Australians "bollocks" is fairly inoffensive. People use it in front of their children, and giggle when they say it. Sydney-siders have pretty colourful vocabularies - if Sadie really wanted to be offensive, she'd have used a stronger word than bollocks.

 

Sadie lives quite close to this incident (I live an hour away) and it has affected her family personally. Our city experiences very little violence of this level. We are very, very lucky. And we are hurting. So, how about you all take your religious debates to another thread and let us grieve the loss of our innocence for a little while.

 

And yes, FFS is stronger. And possibly justified after 5 pages of debate given the circumstances. Meanwhile, our city is blanketed in flowers, and people of all faiths and none queue quietly to pay their respects.

Danielle

[albeto.]

???

 

You know I don't think atheism is a belief system.

 

I actually quite confused by what you are trying to say to me here. You'll have to explain it more simply.

 

My apologies, Sadie. I misread your post here. I read it as a list of religions, including atheism. It stuck in my mind, but obviously incorrectly.

 

The other part was just about criticizing a religion, and confusing that with bigotry towards the adherents of that religion. I'm suggesting you're comment about not being bigoted plays into what Harris said - liberals tend to conflate criticism of Islam with bigotry against Muslims. For some comparison, in my long conversation with Eliana about her faith, I made some comments that she took issue with. She replied and in some cases I changed my mind, in some I didn't. At no time do I recall anyone accusing me of being antisemitic for being critical. Does that make sense? But ultimately, it's not a big deal and if I'm making it more confusing, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be, and I didn't mean to misrepresent you in my last post.

[albeto.]

A critical discussion probably has a different tone and timing to this thread...

 

I hear ya, hon. I'm so sorry you and your community are hurting so much.

 

Truly. It's just awful. All of it.

 

And so discouraging.

 

Maybe talking it out helps people feel like it's not hopeless.

[Ausmumof3]

I'm sure Sadie doesn't need me to defend her, but I'm going to weigh in anyway. For most Australians "bollocks" is fairly inoffensive. People use it in front of their children, and giggle when they say it. Sydney-siders have pretty colourful vocabularies - if Sadie really wanted to be offensive, she'd have used a stronger word than bollocks.

 

Sadie lives quite close to this incident (I live an hour away) and it has affected her family personally. Our city experiences very little violence of this level. We are very, very lucky. And we are hurting. So, how about you all take your religious debates to another thread and let us grieve the loss of our innocence for a little while.

 

And yes, FFS is stronger. And possibly justified after 5 pages of debate given the circumstances. Meanwhile, our city is blanketed in flowers, and people of all faiths and none queue quietly to pay their respects.

Danielle

Just quoting to agree...

[Mom-ninja.]

I'm sure Sadie doesn't need me to defend her, but I'm going to weigh in anyway. For most Australians "bollocks" is fairly inoffensive. People use it in front of their children, and giggle when they say it. Sydney-siders have pretty colourful vocabularies - if Sadie really wanted to be offensive, she'd have used a stronger word than bollocks.

 

Sadie lives quite close to this incident (I live an hour away) and it has affected her family personally. Our city experiences very little violence of this level. We are very, very lucky. And we are hurting. So, how about you all take your religious debates to another thread and let us grieve the loss of our innocence for a little while.

 

And yes, FFS is stronger. And possibly justified after 5 pages of debate given the circumstances. Meanwhile, our city is blanketed in flowers, and people of all faiths and none queue quietly to pay their respects.

Danielle

And Negin has experienced personal experience with Muslim extremists so perhaps she should be given the same consideration. 

 

It's clear that raw feelings are involved, and that is normal human behavior. It's hard to express oneself on a forum let alone when we are suffering grief. 

 

I also had to google FFS. I was a bit taken aback, but again I remind myself that raw emotions are involved. As Albeto pointed out it is hard to set aside emotion when we have a knee jerk reaction to something in order to investigate it further. 

[albeto.]

Non-Aussies seem to be a bit - sensitive- to colourful language.

 

A respected poster used the 'f' word here in the last few weeks without the hand slap. It's hardly beyond the pale.

 

My kids flip off the dog. He doesn't seem to mind.

 

;)

[Mom-ninja.]

Non-Aussies seem to be a bit - sensitive- to colourful language.

 

A respected poster used the 'f' word here in the last few weeks without the hand slap. It's hardly beyond the pale.

 

I'm not sensitive to it but surprised. I was not a witness to the previous talked about profanity so it surprised me to see it here. I haven't seen it here in the past. As I said I missed it. 

 

Besides you are not allowed to use acronyms of which I do not understand. That is the rule. That I just made. 

[VinNY]

Not to derail from this very sensitive topic, but I'm over 50 and on my 6th teenager so I am always looking for new "colorful language" to adequately express myself ;).