|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted February 27, 2015 07:32 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:36, 27 Feb 2015.
|
@Ebonheart
I dont think my point got through to you. The vast majority of people dont become religious like some philosophy student reading a book and its proposals paragraph by paragraph and getting convinced about everything in it on a logical basis. This is neither the psychological nor sociological foundation of how religions spread. The matter of fact is, you can "pick raisins out of the cookie" and the whole history of religions and how they evolve into different sects, reformation movements, theological approachs, mystical or esoteric variations, communions is exactly that: Picking up the convenient and leaving out the inconvenient. Social change remolding the interpretation of the text by stretching logic.
Now, ironically, I do agree with you on the part that if any of these religions WERE true, the literalist radicals who defended them would be the ones who made sense. An onmipresent, omniscient and omnipotent magical authority who had sent you a book to tell you what to do with your life on a daily basis is hypothetically not someone you'll argue or negotiate with. But such an idea is, in reality, so out of propotion and so inadequate, it never ever works that way and we have the historical picture I told you about above: Epi si muove
A lot of people who are religious today dont even read those books, They are simply born into a family tradition, they dont think much about such things, they have prayers to say in funerals, weddings, child birth etc... They are just ordinary people trying to make ends meet with a cultural background, not agents of a theological world dominion masterplan. And I dont want to be underestimating the effect religions have in our cultures (which is clearly very negative in this day and age if you ask me) but you completely miss out every historical and political aspect of the recent conflict. The West is in the heartlands of Islam, bombing cities, throwing off governments... Saying the only difference between Malesian Muslims and the Afghan Muslims is not much and they would all be slaughtering infidels if they had the power under such a context cant be further away from the truth. Have you read the history of the crusades, did you know even back then, when religion was involved in politics in a much more direct manner, princes from both sides made alliences and pacts with each other for land and power? Sometimes it was a Christian lord fighting another Christian lord with the help of a Muslim local who was trying to overthrow another Muslim local. Religion (especially if you are thinking of it like the "execution of a scripture") is never the only determining motive in such things, it never had such monopolic power and it certainly wont have that in this day and age. Actually, the main trend is, more people become secular (if not completely non-religious) each passing decade and we'll have a completely different sociological view a few centruies later. All this globalization and immigration resulted in a lot of cultural conflict and especially the first reflex of many groups were to react against assimilation. Yet, in a broader sense, all of this also makes a lot of people see how ridiculously local their "universal faith" actually is. The "membership" based faith of Abrahamic religions is a thing of the past, it can not resist the heterogenic future. No normal child will grow up geniunely believing that more than half their classmates deserve to rot in hell forever because their parents come from a different culture, it's just something people nod to without thinking much, not a deeply rooted belief.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 10:52 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:27, 28 Feb 2015.
|
My respects to your reasoning Artu, but please make some gaps in the text for poor ol' Ebonheart.
The problem with Religion in my eyes Artu, is that even if I would accept a "pick the raisins out of the cookie" concept, the religions themselves forbids it. Whenever this concept has been used, wars and conflicts arose to calamitous effects. The problem I see with religion is that human greed and viciousness is allowed to roam unchecked and without responsibility.
Religions has spread in the manner you suggest, but they have only done so because they noticed it would be impossible to spread it. Just look of how the Christianity had to change in order to bring the Old Norse followers into the fold. They pick the raisins out of the cookie, but they only did so because the other side would not accept their religion if they did not do so.
artu said:
Now, ironically, I do agree with you on the part that if any of these religions WERE true, the literalist radicals who defended them would be the ones who made sense.
We all agree and disagree with something, no need to say it is a irony when it is just how we reason.
artu said:
A lot of people who are religious today dont even read those books
Which once again goes against the commandments.I see my point does not go through to you Artu. I shall try to be a bit more precise and mild now. IF one joins a religion/sect/cult one agrees to ALL and I mean ALL commandments of that said religion/sect/cult. If one does not even bother to read the commandments, then I am sorry to say that, in my world, one isn't religious. I would rather say, a religous disciple. One can have faith in that Religion's God, but that does not make one religious.
artu said:
They are simply born into a family tradition, they dont think much about such things, they have prayers to say in funerals, weddings, child birth etc... They are just ordinary people trying to make ends meet with a cultural background, not agents of a theological world dominion masterplan.
I agree with this statement. But to cling to a religion is not the same thing as to cling to a culture or tradition, even though they may originate from religion. Let's take Swedish Atiests for instance. They celebrate Christmas, Easter and have red days for religious events, yet they place no judgement in the religion despite this.
artu said:
The West is in the heartlands of Islam, bombing cities, throwing off governments...
I think you know yourself that by playing this card, you risk expanding this discussion thread into something that will be quite immense. I agree that the US should stop acting as a world police, but they also have points when it comes to human rights. However I agree that these wars have been going on for too long and for a lot of bad reasons. If you ask me, the best thing would be to leave, give them no attention in media and let them massacre themselves until they realise they need to change.
The problem for the West, has been that we cannot turn a blind eye towards these problems or deal with the culprits, much like you deal with a hockey player doing something wrong. Just expel them without any feelings whatsoever.
artu said:
Have you read the history of the crusades, did you know even back then, when religion was involved in politics in a much more direct manner, princes from both sides made alliences and pacts with each other for land and power?
I have read the history Artu, but I kinda wish I had not. The problem back then was that the human greed and cruelty could roam freely under the banner of religion, it did not matter which religion it was, they all had their hands in blood.
artu said:
it never had such monopolic power and it certainly wont have that in this day and age.
I think you underestimate the power they had in ages past, but I agree it is doubtful they will attain the same manner of power as they had before.
artu said:
All this globalization and immigration resulted in a lot of cultural conflict
Not resulted, results. For this immigration madness is still not over.
artu said:
the first reflex of many groups were to react against assimilation.
Which is the crux here. One comes to a new place with traditions and a culture of his/her own. The bitter pill to swallow here is to accept the new culture, but the biggest obstacle to overcome here is religion.
artu said:
Yet, in a broader sense, all of this also makes a lot of people see how ridiculously local their "universal faith" actually is.
And yet most studies show that those with a religously tampered background won't. That is why combining cultures, religions and traditions is extremely tricky.
artu said:
No normal child will grow up geniunely believing that more than half their classmates deserve to rot in hell forever because their parents come from a different culture
If you have parents who cling to a religion, they are very likely to pass it down to their offspring and so the child does grow up believing their classmates deserve to rot in hell. It is all a matter of indoctrination and time.
artu said:
not a deeply rooted belief.
It will be if you grow up being constantly reminded of the belief.
MOD EDIT: Formatting fixed.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 12:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:00, 27 Feb 2015.
|
When I say ironically, where I see the irony is this: In theory, the literalist fundamentalists are the ones who get the mentality of the religions right, omnipotent master commands it, he knows better than you, if you have faith, simply obey. So
Ebonheart said:
Which once again goes against the commandments.I see my point does not go through to you Artu. I shall try to be a bit more precise and mild now. IF one joins a religion/sect/cult one agrees to ALL and I mean ALL commandments of that said religion/sect/cult. If one does not even bother to read the commandments, then I am sorry to say that, in my world, one isn't religious. I would rather say, a religous disciple. One can have faith in that Religion's God, but that does not make one religious.
On the contrary, I know exactly what you mean and I agree that IN THEORY that's how religion should work. But religion and its practice is not based on a logical consistency. What I'm trying to tell you is that neither human psychology nor the social context ever works like that, so new interpretations, alternative communions etc start to rise. The context of this debate is not a theological one, we are not discussing how literal should holy texts be taken and what is the true literal meaning of them. That would be a whole other level of expertise since they are full of metaphors, symbolism and a busload of historical reference that is lost to an average modern reader. The context is, how will that religiousity play out in our recent social reality. Now, the fundamentalist approach (which is hypothetically consistent with the doctrine of an omniscient God) will not prevail. It didnt already. You will see dozens of types of Islam varying according to country, culture, climate, social class, historical background, political conjuncture... Islam may be a much tougher nut to crack when it comes to such adaptation but it is not immune. Now, let me emphasize again, I am very well aware that it's a tougher nut to crack and how hardcore Muslims react to the idea of any reform but your level of oversimplification and reductionism leads me to point out that it's not as simple as "well, the book says kill the infidels and that's that."
Ebonheart said:
And yet most studies show that those with a religously tampered background won't. That is why combining cultures, religions and traditions is extremely tricky.
Well, I'd like to see the details of those studies because even very conservative people dont try to raise their children as murderous fanatics.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ebonheart
Famous Hero
Rush the rush
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 01:40 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The context of this debate is not a theological one
But that's the entire core to our debate problem here. You have to start by looking at what lies under the religion's outer shell. If you have a religion bent on murder, it makes little sense to even start reaching out for its branches when you know the roots are disintegration of resistance.
artu said:
The context is, how will that religiousity play out in our recent social reality.
This has already been played out before and the story just keeps repeating itself. For example the hunt on jews. They have been hunted since day 1 and it keeps happening to them. Yet no one really asks, "Why are these people so chased?". Because no one dares to go to the roots of the problem, which is how the religion works in its roots and essence. This might seem like a very cold approach Artu, but you have to start at the roots, not the branches and leaves.
artu said:
Now, the fundamentalist approach (which is hypothetically consistent with the doctrine of an omniscient God) will not prevail. It didnt already. You will see dozens of types of Islam varying according to country, culture, climate, social class, historical background, political conjuncture...
Yes there are different types of religions depending on the country. But somehow I am getting the feeling that you think the problems with these are just swept away cause we are in a more modern time. These problems have occurred over and over throughout history and they will just come afresh until the roots of the problem is dealt with. Which is the religion and the human mind.
artu said:
Well, I'd like to see the details of those studies because even very conservative people dont try to raise their children as murderous fanatics.
Then I suppose it would be best to just google it. There are so many reports on how culture clashes, growing up under religion and with different traditions from the society one lives in, that it is almost overwhelming.
Edit: But you have good arguments Artu, don't get me wrong there. You certainly know your knowledge. But I am more of the "go to the core" type.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 02:18 PM |
|
|
Thank you for the compliment Ebonheart, I always enjoy such debates where difference of opinion doesnt get in the way of common courtesy. Not to run in circles, I'll sum up where I think you're mistaken for the last time and leave it at that.
The theological premise of a religion is not the core of the issue here (of course, it is not totally irrelavant, that's why I mention reductionism, ) because, its social evolution does not depend on it. That is quite an observable fact.
As I already said, I am very well aware of the problems and I dont think anything is swept away but your diognosis about "the core" is actually not about the core, so, it causes you to reduce religion into scripture. In all Abrahamic religions' texts, slavery is mentioned as something quite ordinary, it's not directly outlawed, yet overwhelming majority of religious people today are against slavery and they think it should be outlawed. Why is that? Because social norms change over time according to totally different dynamics and religiousity takes its share from that.
1.5 million Muslims (let's say that's just official statistics and only half of them are "true believers") dont spend their lives dreaming to convert or kill the infidels. We would be living in a very different world if they did. A significant portion of them couldnt care less if you are a believer or not, especially had there not been this political conjuncture in the Middle-East. The real issues here are, they are mostly ultraconservative about freedom of speech, sexuality, education, art... But take my word on this, they dont want to kill you because you are not a Muslim.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2015 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:38, 16 Mar 2015.
|
So I'm having a problem with muslim radicalism as a politican in Sweden. I'm involved in school issues and in the schools there have been A LOT of fighting over ISIL/Daesh recently. Basically there are a number of radicalized people who are basically preaching about Daesh in schools. This causes fights with other muslims who do not agree with them.
So recently, we shut down one of the radicalized persons from school for two weeks (at the school leadership's request). A policy which I do not really think makes them less radicalized. On the contrary, I think that can cause more tension and hatred against the democratic system. So I'm trying to think of ways of stopping this? People involved (school leadership, other politicans) keep talking about "democratic values" and such, but I don't really think preaching about this or about gender roles (yes, in Sweden, criticising norms about gender roles is part of teaching "democraric values") are going to make people less keen on supporting militant jihad.
My point so far has been that this struggle is a theological struggle. Non-muslims will have a very hard time convincing radicalised young muslims that democracy is superior to the words of Allah in the Quran. Problem is the local mosque doesn't really want to get involved. They say that they don't support Daesh but they do NOTHING. On top of that, they are known to have invited people who have been preaching about sharia and the "golden age of islam", which is a strong part of the Daesh rhetoric.
Any ideas?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 16, 2015 09:29 PM |
|
|
So the local mosque does not want to get involved when it is a matter of defending the democracy but gets involved when inviting radicalised preachers. Sounds to me as a well-known music.
And 2 weeks shut for preaching jihad and sharia in schools, big lol. IMO Sweden is lost, as its people seem brainless when need to take the appropriate decisions.
What is so unclear? If someone preaches Jihad, deport him and his family. If a mosque invites radicalised preachers, shut down the mosque and make from it a mixed swimming pool.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2015 09:49 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 21:50, 16 Mar 2015.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 16, 2015 10:42 PM |
|
|
@Xerox
i'd say telling them that inviting anyone preaching for Jihad is unacceptable. shutting down any Mosque is out of the question if you ask me (there are already too few and those that are are under constant threat from anti-muslims) since everyone have a right to somewhere to express their religious beliefs. A line needs to be drawn about what is and isn't ok though but do keep in mind that muslims are a very threatened group so them acting defensibly should be expected.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2015 11:34 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:35, 16 Mar 2015.
|
kiryu133 said:
@Xerox
i'd say telling them that inviting anyone preaching for Jihad is unacceptable. shutting down any Mosque is out of the question if you ask me (there are already too few and those that are are under constant threat from anti-muslims) since everyone have a right to somewhere to express their religious beliefs. A line needs to be drawn about what is and isn't ok though but do keep in mind that muslims are a very threatened group so them acting defensibly should be expected.
Well, we can't actually control what sort of people they invite, but I can - and I will - call out on their hypocracy in the media. The public funds they have are set on the national level and I am currently a local politican. There's also an actual disadvantage in cutting their public funding and that is that it causes them to be more independant on private donations from wahabi muslims in Saudi Arabia. Wahabism is the sort of Islam spread by Daesh.
Generally, Muslims do not face significant discrimination in Sweden and I know for a fact that a lot of Muslims, especially mothers, are very concerned on their children getting brainwashed to travel to a war zone and get themselves killed. Already, about a dozen young men have travelled to Daesh, many whom have died. You also have the problem of them getting training and experience in the war zone and then returning to Sweden with those skills.
Salamandre said:
And 2 weeks shut for preaching jihad and sharia in schools, big lol. IMO Sweden is lost, as its people seem brainless when need to take the appropriate decisions.
What is so unclear? If someone preaches Jihad, deport him and his family. If a mosque invites radicalised preachers, shut down the mosque and make from it a mixed swimming pool.
Maybe saying that they preach was a bit of a stretch. It's not like they conduct grand sermons in the class rooms (which they have the right to do because we have this thing called freedom of speech which I greatly support). These are people my age (meaning they don't usually have families) spreading Daesh's message by word of mouth at lunch breaks and such. One of my political allies even overheard such conversation at a lunchb break during a school visit. It's that open.
Often, they know very little of Islam which is why it would be so beneficial if the Muslim community actually took this seriously. Unfortunately, my understanding is that a significant part of the organized Muslim community (not Muslims! there's an important difference between Muslims ad the organizations claiming to represent them) symphatizes with Daesh's creation of the Islamic Caplihate.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 10:10 AM |
|
|
i'm not really into politics that much, but as a swede, most of what i hear about muslims are SD's thinly veiled racism and their supporters constant harassment. Some locals tried (and failed, thankfully) to gather names for a petition to stop a mosque being built here and there constant reports of spitting and harassment. of course that's just my experience and i'm not very involved so there's that.
My mind is still to make them aware what is and is not ok. don't just tear the damn thing down (we need more mosques, not less) but make sure they understand that this is an issue they need to take seriously.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 10:31 AM |
|
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 10:32 AM |
|
|
considering there are like a hundred churches per mosque...
kinda unfair.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 10:40 AM |
|
|
Sweden is a Lutheran Christian at 66%, Islamic at 5%. If you are Sweden then YOU don't need more mosques, but THEY need more mosques, those 5%. Considering that your people generously pays for those mosques (btw, do you have a job, are you part of the welfare contributors?), this affirmation is a straight invitation for more muslims to come in, when saying more mosques are needed.
Give me a serious argument why a swedish people would need more muslims. What are the beneficial outcomes?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 05:40 PM |
|
|
That's premised on Swedes collectively owning the territory of Sweden and being able to decide whom to invite. But they don't - even if a large proportion of Swedes didn't want Muslim immigrants, they still wouldn't have the right to keep them out.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 08:35 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:37, 17 Mar 2015.
|
I don't quite agree Mvass. The government's function is to protect the rights of its citizens and if someone who is trying to enter the country is a threat, then it is not wrong for the government to prevent that person from entering the country. I do not for example think that terrrorists should be allowed to migrate to Sweden. Free immigration does not mean that terrorists or an organized force such as the Russian army suddenly can enter Swedish territory at will.
Salamandre said:
Sweden is a Lutheran Christian at 66%, Islamic at 5%. If you are Sweden then YOU don't need more mosques, but THEY need more mosques, those 5%. Considering that your people generously pays for those mosques (btw, do you have a job, are you part of the welfare contributors?), this affirmation is a straight invitation for more muslims to come in, when saying more mosques are needed.
Give me a serious argument why a swedish people would need more muslims. What are the beneficial outcomes?
Sweden is a largely atheist country with no official state church. It is not for the public to decide if a mosque can be built or not, unless the request is to build the mosque in a publically administrated area.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 08:59 PM |
|
|
You were not talking about a rich muslim tycoon building a mosque on his private property, were you Xerox? Clearly, everybody is referring to the state building temples on public areas.
There are many factors here, not just extreme stuff like terrorism. Cities have historical panaromas, you cant build everything everywhere, if it's some uniquely historical place like Florance, you have to get a permission to even paint your own house and it should be like that no matter what your puritanical liberterianism says, I see first hand what happens to cities when you disregard zoning laws since they are violated here all the time. To live in such ugliness is not worth absolute freedom over property.
And when it comes to immigration, as long as infrastructure, employment and budget of the cities we live have their limitations, immigration will be something that is regulated one way or the other. Claiming otherwise would be like defending your hypothetical right to walk in and out of a quarantine zone, it's just a senseless waste of time.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 09:33 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
The government's function is to protect the rights of its citizens and if someone who is trying to enter the country is a threat, then it is not wrong for the government to prevent that person from entering the country. I do not for example think that terrrorists should be allowed to migrate to Sweden. Free immigration does not mean that terrorists or an organized force such as the Russian army suddenly can enter Swedish territory at will.
That gives the government far too much discretion. Of course it should keep out foreign armies and actual terrorists, but that's different from normal immigrants - keeping them out on the grounds of safety is convicting them before they've done anything wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 09:39 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:41, 17 Mar 2015.
|
A terrorist is not a "normal immigrant." I fully support free movement between states for various reasons but that freedom does not extend to terrorists, criminals and others who are an obvious threat to citizens.
Artu: I'm a classical liberal actually, which means I no longer politically oppose the existence of a government.
My impression was that Salamandre wants the government to prohibit mosques from being built even on private property which is why I stated that the public can only stop it on public property. There can be a problem with minarets though as they can be considered a nuisance for neighbours, but that should be dealt with through private property law though I'm unsure if such laws exist nowdays (atleast in common law, legal jurisidiction against nuisance existed untill corporatist interests removed them during industralization).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 17, 2015 09:44 PM |
|
|
Free movement or free habitation?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
