Fantastic Discussion about Islam and other Religions


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Nothing wrong with cultivating a prejudice; it depends on what prejudice is being cultivated.

Exactly. It also depends on whose ox is being gored. And it depends on the effects of the prejudice. Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect. If that opinion or feeling formed before or without knowledge, thought, or reason, well that has not much effect beyond the porch. That person who judges without knowledge or reason is, I would argue, harming himself by sloppy cognitions. His basic self-interest is in gaining the most reliable knowledge, using the tools of reason, applying the hard grind of thought -- not being fooled, duped or unduly ignorant. I'd say that his failing to abide by reason leaves him vulnerable to other consequential interests.

In the end, the sloppy thinker is cognitively disabled, and the prime victim of himself -- with reduced ability to navigate the world wisely and honestly.

For example, a great majority of Americans polled on attitudes towards minority groups single out atheists/unbelievers for particular heightened mistrust based on their perceived lack of morality. Atheists are seen as more dangerous even than Muslims. Americans would vote for a Muslim before they would vote for an avowed atheist. What does this prejudice serve, how are the consequences sorted out?

Could this be a (selfishly) healthy prejudice against objective thinkers/atheists, cultivated by most religious groups across the board, for humane reasons and to the benefit of the individuals who hold it? Well, it depends, doesn't it?

Brant, if you are not too busy or sidelined, I am sure you can give multiple further examples of It Depends.

"Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect."

That's only true if there's no one else sitting on the porch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's only true if there's no one else sitting on the porch.

Deanna,

LOL...

:smile:

So true...

The thing that gets me with bigotry is it's so damn easy.

One of the hardest parts of thinking for me is to suspend judgment and reexamine an issue to see if I identified it correctly, or see if nothing has changed since the last examination, or, in rare awful cases, see if I was wrong from the beginning.

I have to do that often with volatile issues (like violent fundamentalism, but with others, too). I have to fight my inner bigot all the time. :smile: If not, he will give me canned answers to complex problems and then, ironically, I become part of the problem I want to eliminate, not the solution.

It's no fun doing this at times, i.e., discovering when I have been wrong. But it's even less fun knowing I have wronged people (and myself) because I was too damn stubborn to use my brain.

This does not mean I don't judge. I do and sometimes very harshly. All it means is I am rigid about running the cognitive before normative routine when pertinent. I re-identify constantly using that system when an issue is important to me and I am not an expert.

This helps with certainty. That may seem counter-intuitive because I am constantly re-checking a foundation, but this makes me sure of what I do know. And I know why I know it, i.e., when it is experience and when others have told me. I, also, know I can (and often do) correct it because I am committed to accuracy. That gives me more certainty than anything else. My knowledge grows in quality this way, honed by both corrections and repeatedly seeing the thing is the same as before--all this done when I am in a state of not judging it.

After that identify and/or re-identify stage, I re-judge, of course.

Bigots do the reverse. They start by judging, then try to identify things that support their judgment while ignoring and rationalizing the parts that don't fit.

Humans already do that by default in the lower parts of the brain.

Like I said, it's just too damn easy for complex issues.

Identifying correctly at first is hard enough, but it takes real effort to re-identify something you have already judged. But that's what using your upper brain means.

It's like an airplane pilot attentively running through his pre-flight checklist. He did the checklist for the last flight, so that most likely is valid for current one, too. Or at least he doesn't need to pay all that much attention. He already knows what's on it and, besides, everything is always in order.

After a while, such a pilot is no longer heard from. :smile:

Imagine going through life with the "identify without prejudice" part of your brain turned off and devoting yourself to a sacred mission to get people to do the same so you can push them to hate what you hate.

That's the bigot.

What a waste of brain.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points from Michael on the essentials -- Maher's conclusions are not reliable, are not valid. The underlying fault is one of reason (that's my take). Maher has shown himself to be incorrigible ... on other subjects (eg, germ theory, death of Pasteur), and is incorrigible now. Much like Richard, he uses faulty generalizations to drive his arguments.

I thought it was telling that the first thing out of Maher's mouth was that he didn't want to talk about Islam anymore. I figure that was almost right: he didn't want to be challenged anymore.

Adam,

I think Maher's bigotry is a little more subtle than just anti-Islam.

He is anti-religion bigot, not just an ideological opponent. He's on a crusade. (The ironic thing is bigots are actually religious people underneath with their own belief systems.)


It seems obvious to me that several of Maher's arguments are bigoted -- just from the definition of the word. It is in the conclusions and opinions -- how they are derived. If they are not derived from rigorous thought and reasoning, using the best tools to defeat cognitive errors and biases -- then they are on mushy, epistemogically-weak grounds. Archie Bunker grounds.

If Maher can get an anti-Islam crusade agenda accepted by his audience and get it to grow, he can use that as leverage for the rest of religions. The thing is to draw first blood (especially since he constantly fizzles--see his documentary, Religulous, for example) and Islam looks like a good target from where he sits because of the vileness of the Islamist radicals.


He is an entertainer, a comedian at heart. He isn't in the business of reason full-time. He doesn't know how to gracefully take correction on any matter. His bigoted thought processes and cheap arguments marred his movie badly. The movie showcased the unpleasant lazy arrogance of his public 'persona.'

I mention these behavioural and epistemelogical factors because they were what made me skeptical of Maher's reasoning long before the current flap.

What makes the current flap so tedious is that it deepens prejudice in those folks who are just as tetchy and arrogant/ignorant as Maher himself.

The ultimate idea behind bigots is not to encourage reason and bring up everyone to the light of day. It is to mock and destroy a target group of humans. (And tsk tsk tsk about "collateral damage" from collectivist actions, but secretly rejoice in it. Sometimes not so secretly.)

I see an ultimate laziness of mind, and incorrigibility as key. I mention Archie Bunker. How many times was Archie's ignorance at the bottom of his bigotries? How resistant was he to information that challenged his conclusions?

I see a common thread running through Archie, Bill and Richard. A set of conclusions in seek of confirmation, rather than a search for reliable knowledge.

I wish I could reason with bigots and God knows I have tried for years. But they have abandoned reason far too early in life. An us-against-them core story of hatred runs where their reason should reside.

It falls to the faulty generalizations and unexamined prejudices. I think Maher really believes he is discussing a real thing when he uses the phrase "The Muslim World."

He starts out quoting ... surprise, surprise ... Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman ... "this is a civilization in distress ... pathologies ..." "no other religion comes close to the menace and violence of Islam ..."

Can we say 'confirmation bias'? Can we suggest that the only people Maher can get to discuss The Muslim World are, um, three non-Muslim people?

He says, of Tunisia, no other country has sent as many fighters to join ISIS ... and they talked to people in cafes and they were Big Fans ... so Tunisians are Big Fans of ISIS. This one culture is combustible.

Which is horseshit.

It would be interesting to see what scrap of reporting Maher was apparently citing in his Tunisians R Big Fans of ISIS claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It also depends on whose ox is being gored. And it depends on the effects of the prejudice. Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect. If that opinion or feeling formed before or without knowledge, thought, or reason, well that has not much effect beyond the porch. That person who judges without knowledge or reason is, I would argue, harming himself by sloppy cognitions.

"Simply sitting on a porch and spitting out an unfavorable opinion or feeling about Group A or Person B has no effect."

That's only true if there's no one else sitting on the porch.

Deanna, thanks for sifting out that line -- it doesn't make a lot of sense. I argue that the effect of prejudice -- like any hasty cognition -- does have an effect on the porch-spitter, degrades the porch-spitter's grip on the real world. So to say that it has no effect is not logical.

The porch is just a stand-in for the spitter's world. If he is like other prejudiced people, his thoughts (and verbalizations and expectations) can and will have an effect (for example upon his children's views) beyond hobbling his own cognitions. And beyond the porch and property, not even a hermit survivalist will have zero effect. Shoddy arguments can be appealing to other prejudiced people. Shoddy arguments can be quite effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for Muslims a watershed for their religion/culture is close, or due. It could be a process of individuals and communities everywhere, commiting fully (openly and implicitly) to living and promoting a peaceful life, respectful of the ideologies and laws of Western countries - or conversely, as I see increasing, finding further cause for continued self-righteous anger at some real, but mostly contrived or imagined, Western deprivations, slights and insult. Time to take stock of themselves, and to overwhelmingly judge acts done in the name of Islam by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for Muslims a watershed for their religion/culture is close, or due. It could be a process of individuals and communities everywhere, commiting fully (openly and implicitly) to living and promoting a peaceful life, respectful of the ideologies and laws of Western countries - or conversely, as I see increasing, finding further cause for continued self-righteous anger at some real, but mostly fictitious Western deprivations and insult. Time to take stock of themselves, and to overwhelmingly judge acts done in the name of Islam by others.

These are some rather attractive general comments. A watershed moment for their religion/culture is appealing. The form of the watershed process is a little unclear. Individuals committing openly and implicitly to living the peaceful life under Western secular regimes seems more than a very good idea. Indeed, many individuals and communities across the Western and non-Western world have denounced and deplored instances of criminal acts and acts of terror by extremists. In Canada, for example, there is as I noted in my earlier post, universal revulsion at the acts of Bibeau and Rouleau (and before him, one who did not immediately meet death -- Bourque).

The bits about 'self-righteous anger' at what you consider 'mostly fictitious' grievances (deprivations and insult), they are not appealing to me. The bits seem somewhat prejudicial and off-beam -- perhaps because there are no instances or examples given. (though I imagine you can give an example from every Muslim-majority nation in the world)

Here's one example of a Canadian Muslim speaking to the most recent deaths in Ottawa, Taslima Jaffer. I wonder, Tony, if her article meets your requirements.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, Taken one by one, fact by fact, and you and I will be mighty old and grey before we arrive at any conclusions. (What do you do with all these facts you tirelessly validate or debunk?)

I prefer to first gather inferences and trends from a bigger picture, i.e. from what ISN'T happening, as much as from what is. Such as, that there has not been (that I'm aware of) ONE rally and protest denouncing IS, by Muslims en masse -- though I do see this handful of single courageous individuals and an occasional imam speaking up - let alone condemning every other outrage committed by Muslims daily (like a litany of suicide bombs murdering civilians).

As comparison, the "genocidal Israelis" who inadvertently killed 1000+ civilians in what one might call a conflict of self-defence are still - months later- raising "self-righteous anger" from all over the world: Muslim and Western. Do you begin to see a distinction here? A double standard?

Futher, the13 million of world Jewry contains a vociferous minority who oppose even a defensive war with Palestine: in fact Israelis were demonstrating against the government even during the hostilities. That I think they're wrong-headed, is besides the point - but the fact that they do, and that they can, says a lot about Jewish morality and personal freedoms.

Yet, one thousand times that number of Muslims - 1.3 billion(?) - if my maths are right, have not raised a squeak that I can hear, not to mention a roar.

You are being a bit too quick to level 'prejudicial' at anyone, non? I'd guess that next to you I have had more contact with Muslims (like pleasant Pakistani shopkeepers in the Central African countries I grew up in) than anyone here. Those I know presently have alarmed me in recent months with a distinct shift of attitudes in their discourse. Intelligent and highly educated individuals who were the epitome of moderacy to me, are now talking heatedly of "the injustice to our people" everywhere from e.g. Indonesia to Pakistan to the UK to Syria, and of course Palestine. "Our" people!! This aggrieved defensive-aggression comes over subtly on a local Islamic TV station I sometimes watch, too. Honestly, I am not even sure what 'moderate' means any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't his switch. It was yours. You are unfair to Mr. Maher in your switch, and you misrepresent him.

Actually I don't.

I throw the light on Maher's bigotry just like I throw light on yours.

You haven't thrown any light. You've merely misrepresented what he said. He hasn't said that "ALL" Muslims are violent. As someone who supposedly values objectivity, and justice, you shouldn't misrepresent him like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from because I grew up around bigots.

You want to say one thing and mean another and have CYA so you can say you are reasonable.

Like Maher.

Bigots package hatred as reason and play the victim when someone calls them out on it.

Bigots demand objectivity for their CYA messages when they refuse to give it in their approach. Then they try to pretend the hypocrisy lies outside themselves.

It's amusing at times.

But we have said our peace on this. Our views are clear. Let's move on to something else.

I (and readers) get bored quickly with simple you're wrong, no you're wrong, no you're wrong, no you're wrong, no you're wrong interactions. That is not the kind of discussion to present to intelligent readers.

Readers have enough from us to decide for themselves on this issue who is right and who is wrong, who is a bigot and who is not, who is objective and who is deceptive.

I'm happy to let readers decide at this point--to let them think for themselves. I doubt you will ever be. When people think for themselves, they generally don't adopt the hatreds of others. They need to be manipulated into that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

Have you noticed that, even as we come down on different sides of this issue at times, we never disagree strongly with each other?

Did you ever think why?

I don't know about you (although I suspect your conclusion is like mine), but from my end it's because you speak from first-hand experience over time with Muslim communities. As do I.

Even when I think your generalizations are way too broad (actually I know they are because they conflict with what I have lived), I know you speak from what you have seen, not from what someone has told you, and not from irrational prejudice.

In other words, I could take you into the situations I have lived and I have no doubt you would reevaluate some generalizations. In my conception of you, I think your eyes are more important to you than the prejudices of others or even conclusions you have drawn from seeing other situations. I'm not talking about reversing your conclusions altogether, just changing them enough to to make room for what you see when it differs from what you believed.

I have no problem with a mind like that. The truth is just a matter of working out the details of different perspectives and it's a joy to exchange different views.

I do have a problem with a mind that is devoted to spreading hatred as its driving motor (like the person defending Maher above). No matter what he sees, he will always believe in his generalizations. He will ignore and rationalize what doesn't fit. If his eye offends him, he will pluck it out just so he can keep the hatred alive as he believes it.

I see a fundamental epistemological difference between the minds of you two. I'm not trying to draw you into a disagreement, but I think the philosophical point is worth talking about and this example is such a clear concrete illustration of it, I cannot resist pointing to it.

On a parallel issue, let me give you some information on William you may not know. Back when "let's bomb all Muslims" discussions erupted in O-Land, he went to get first-hand experience and got an eye-opener. I'll let him mention the details if he wants to, but he started posting on a Muslim site devoted to specific current issues. He then became a moderator of that site. He has seen what happens up close and personal, both with moderate reasonable Muslims and with the kooks. He has had intelligent discussions and he has had his life threatened.

So he is not speaking from just a liberal bias. He has paid some real-life dues. Granted, it was online stuff, but it was among Muslims within a Muslim community. And it was over time. The raw good, the raw bad and the raw ugly. He saw.

That counts to me more than someone who once talked to a Muslim somewhere, but reads biased sites and material (of either side) and draws conclusions from the opinions of celebrities.

I see you in the same category as William even as you disagree with him. I can't speak for him, but I think he does, too.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't his switch. It was yours. You are unfair to Mr. Maher in your switch, and you misrepresent him.

Actually I don't.

I throw the light on Maher's bigotry just like I throw light on yours.

You haven't thrown any light. You've merely misrepresented what he said. He hasn't said that "ALL" Muslims are violent. As someone who supposedly values objectivity, and justice, you shouldn't misrepresent him like that.

I'm quoting you not to participate in your argument with Michael as such, but for what I hope is a deeper point.

The basic problem with the Muslim religion is the conflation of state and religious power which Christianity has steadily moved away from, not what is inside any Muslim's head about what's in the Koran. Once Muslims obtain a critical political mass and take over a state like Iran the state becomes a religious prison and within a prison the most thuggish rule. The only way to stop this internally, as opposed to outside intervention, is with brute force rule a la a Saddam Hussein.

Now an extremist Sunni faction has created a "Caliphate" in order to establish a practical base for existential conquest using all means necessary including terrorism--terrorism mostly against Muslims who are inside this prison I've alluded to. This is a strategic error on the part of ISIS (ISIL?) and it will be crushed to the extent it seems successful short term. Iran is in a much stronger position of topography and getting the big bomb, etc. and is the real problem going forward. The big war will be the West vs. Iran. Israel is a western nation in the Middle East and will naturally enough be involved in that. The key to controlling terrorism is not waging war against a Muslim religion but breaking and controlling and confining Muslim state power which in turn sponsors terrorism. Young men do not repair to a religion to fight--that's just lubrication--they repair to a state or a state to be. When they learn there is no state to be they'll put their flags back into the closet and go out and get real jobs or just hang out and chase girls.

After Iran is crushed the bigger problem of demographics will reveal itself in Western Europe when Muslims try state takeover and dominance with the aid of democratic processes, most likely in France. To counter this the state will turn secular fascist and those processes traduced. If the Muslim extremists failed in Egypt, of all places, they'll also fail in any European country. It's one thing for your own kind to introduce tyranny bit by bit--that's what's going on in the United States--quite another for another. Tribalism kicks in and it's bare knuckle fighting.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, your analysis is excellent Brant.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States make war with other states , otherwise it is gangs going after each other. If /when war with Iran comes to the West the killing will be no less or more regardless of religion or even lack thereof.

Where is/are the muslim Luthers? If he is to come , or even if it the rise of the moderate or non-ist part of the ummah, do they not first have to inject Ceasar to render to him? The Jeffersonian wall needs to be built somewhere, unless of course we all wake up as happy atheists some day, though I doubt even that would cause wars to cease, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to controlling terrorism is not waging war against a Muslim religion but breaking and controlling and confining Muslim state power which in turn sponsors terrorism. Young men do not repair to a religion to fight--that's just lubrication--they repair to a state or a state to be.

Brant,

This is how I understand it. And I believe this has to do with human nature. I find the notion silly of a religion or philosophy brainwashing people like an abstract puppet-master pulling on strings. The human mind does not work that way. Science is bearing this out, too.

A state comes with attractive possibilities for individuals: gaining power, social standing, a clear set of rules for ascending over others in reputation or wealth or influence, a source of traditions and culture, a way to protect and enforce physical boundaries, even a way to get attractive mates. A state also gives a person who believes in it a strong sense of individual identity while at the same time offering the feeling of safety that comes with belonging to a collective group.

I would not call religion a lubrication, though. It is the source of the core stories that identify the morality of the in-group that comprises the state. (Another source is the history of the state, especially the lives of the heroes. As an added thought, this also includes the history of the culture.) Social glue more than social lubrication.

You are totally right about one thing, though. Without a state or a promise of a state (or the reverse, the destruction of a state one deems too evil and oppressive to continue existing), nobody goes out in the name of a religion and commits violence. Irrespective of the religion. Ditto for philosophy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, Taken one by one, fact by fact, and you and I will be mighty old and grey before we arrive at any conclusions. (What do you do with all these facts you tirelessly validate or debunk?)

Taken one by one, fact by fact, I can approach an approximation of reality (or aspect of it) in my mind.

What do I do with facts? Well, I have a fair memory, a fair retention. The facts go into memory. As for debunking ... this is a fun thing for me, I must admit. The fun is in the work, not necessarily in the outcome, and not necessarily in promoting my conclusions. Often, I just want to be able to better understand a given issue or a given claim. Using reason to explore the issue and claim gives me pleasure. I like to think that I have a talent for thinking things through, and for understanding at least a few means by which I can improve my thinking.

I cannot accept the implication that you and I will rarely if ever share a conclusion, for this would suggest we can never agree on particulars. If you mean that there are no facts for us each to grasp and agree upon, I really think that we need to get down to specifics. There are plenty of facts and claims and arguments out there.

I prefer to first gather trends from a bigger picture, like from what ISN'T happening, as much as from what is. Such as, not (that I'm aware of) ONE rally and protest by Muslims en masse, denouncing IS -- though I do see this handful of single courageous individuals and an occasional imam - let alone condemning every other outrage committed by Muslims daily (like a litany of suicide bombs murdering civilians).

Well, maybe I kind of understand you. You think something desirable to you isn't happening enough. Reading between the lines, you have not seen one rally and protest by Muslims en masse denouncing the Islamic State. I don't know why you think that something hasn't happened simply because you haven't received news of it. Beyond that, what other issues demand that a community of faith publicly protest en masse?

Questions unanswered, of course. If I read between the lines correctly, you believe that you have accurately assessed a 'trend' well enough to give you solid conclusions. I don't know quite what those conclusion are, and I don't know what 'trends' you have ascertained -- beyond the notion that it isn't enough. There are many ways to profess digust and denunciation, and many instances may have escaped your attention. I don't believe you set yourself a task to adequately assess "Muslim outrage" against the Islamic State.

Ask yourself: what do the peoples of Syria, for example, think of ISIS? Of Assad? Of Kurdish aspirations? Of the current 'hands-off Assad' policy of the Western coalition? What do Turkish Kurds think of Assad?

If you don't acquaint yourself with the details, how are you serving yourself and the best practice of your reason?

As comparison, the "genocidal Israelis" who inadvertently killed 1000+ civilians in what one might call a conflict of self-defence are still - months later- raising "self-righteous anger" from all over the world: Muslim and Western. Do you begin to see a distinction here? A double standard?

This is very murky. The comparison is between public (and en masse) demonstrations by Muslims against ISIS terrorism -- and some impressions you arrive at about Israel/Palestinian conflict. You ascribe to Muslims -- too many Muslims, evidently -- a position that they may or may not have. You ascribe to Muslims an acceptance of ISIS terror and other incidents of terror. You suggest by omission that the same Muslims indulge in self-righteous anger.

Can you appreciate that your comparison might not add light to your original contentions?

Futher, the13 million of world Jewry contains a vociferous minority who oppose even a defensive war with Palestine: in fact Israelis were demonstrating against the government even during the hostilities. That I think they're wrong-headed, is besides the point - but the fact that they do, and that they can, says a lot about Jewish morality and personal freedoms.

Emotive words and phrases like 'vociferous minority' suggests to me that there is only one way to view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- your way. It further suggests that there is a true narrative and one only. It devalues those Israelis who oppose policies and practices of their government and armed forces. It suggests that any infra-Jewish controversy has a malignant untruth in opposition to a pure good.

Yet, one thousand times that number of Muslims - 1.3 billion(?) - if my maths are right, have not raised a squeak that I can hear, not to mention a roar.

It surprises me that you suggest that there has not been a squeak against ISIS by Muslims. It's just not true, Tony. I am surprised that you would let poorly-sampled data dictate your conclusions. It is false to claim there is no opposition to ISIS simply because the manifestation of that opposition does not fit your expectations. I might add that I think you are slacking at inquiry: have you set yourself a task to discover how much opposition there is to ISIS in the Muslim world?

I don't think you have. I think you have been incurious if not passive. The passivity has hindered your investigation, and your conclusions may not be sound.

If you had a question (how much have Muslims individually and en masse publically condemned ISIS?) then you have also a means to answer it. The first thing to consider is that Muslims speak many languages. Arabic, English, French, Turkish, Kurdish, Persian, Indonesian, Malay ... and so on. Have you done an investigation that queries these constituencies?

You are being a bit too quick to level 'prejudicial' at anyone, non? I'd guess that next to you I have had more contact with Muslims (like pleasant Pakistani shopkeepers in the Central African countries I grew up in) than anyone here. Those I know presently have alarmed me in recent months with a distinct shift of attitudes in their discourse.

I said that some bits of your comment were not appealing to me. The bits seemed "somewhat prejudicial and off-beam -- perhaps because there are no instances or examples given." It's my reaction to your glum, generalized and rather murky assertions.

Since I hoped you would give examples, I am glad you bring up what it is that concerns you -- that some of the Muslims you know right now have somehow alarmed you. Perhaps you can add some flesh to this glum set of bones. Like how many, and how indicative are your impressions -- how these upsets you feel have given you insight into an otherwise occluded "Muslim Mind."

Do you see how prejudicial your initial assessment might seem on the surface?

Intelligent and highly educated individuals who were the epitome of moderacy to me, are now talking heatedly of "the injustice to our people" everywhere from e.g. Indonesia to Pakistan to the UK to Syria, and of course Palestine. "Our" people!!

What is the connection to ISIS? What is the connection between 'heated talk' of injustice (in, I guess, Palestine/Israel) and ISIS?

I'd be interested in details of the intelligent and highly educated person who raised the issue of Indonesia. How did the details pertain to ISIS?

How indeed would you wish a Muslim person to feel about the horror-show in Syria? How would you expect anyone to feel about that nightmare?

This aggrieved defensive-aggression comes over subtly on a local Islamic TV station I sometimes watch, too. Honestly, I am not even sure what 'moderate' means any more.

This seems all over the map. You appear to have cornered the market on grievance and judged any expression of or discussion of grievance to be illicit by your standards. Now, Tony, you know exactly what you mean when you write something. You have the memory of Mr Patel ranting about the Israelis. You have Mr Panalang ranting about the shit that the Dutch did, in your mind.

But we don't have these examples. We don't have access to the details unless you spell it out.

Now, all these disagreements behind, I want to stress my main point: you are relatively unaware of what Muslims feel about ISIS because you have not conducted a fair inquiry. You let yourself down by assuming an 'absence' of Muslim repugnance without doing a proper assay of the weight of the repugnance.

I think that you will understand and acknowledge my objections where they seem reasonable and rational.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a parallel issue, let me give you some information on William you may not know. Back when "let's bomb all Muslims" discussions erupted in O-Land, he went to get first-hand experience and got an eye-opener. I'll let him mention the details if he wants to, but he started posting on a Muslim site devoted to specific current issues. He then became a moderator of that site. He has seen what happens up close and personal, both with moderate reasonable Muslims and with the kooks. He has had intelligent discussions and he has had his life threatened.

The online forum belongs to Joshua Landis, a professor in Oklahoma. His forum pre-dates the 'Arab Spring' and the terrible war in Syria. That forum is called Syria Comment. Landis is not a Muslim, but is married to a woman from Syria who is of the Alawi community.

The discussions there that I participated in are too many to reasonably describe. I became a moderator when I complained to Dr Landis that some commentary was seething with hatred and sectarian bigotry -- counter to the site's rules. He gave me the opportunity to moderate, and I did to the best of my ability until I was "outed" by a partisan and former writer/editor for the Syria Comment blog.

So he is not speaking from just a liberal bias. He has paid some real-life dues. Granted, it was online stuff, but it was among Muslims within a Muslim community. And it was over time. The raw good, the raw bad and the raw ugly. He saw.

That counts to me more than someone who once talked to a Muslim somewhere, but reads biased sites and material (of either side) and draws conclusions from the opinions of celebrities.

Michael, I think you give me too much credit for understanding The Muslims, but by participating at Syria Comment (and via Twitter) in debate and discussion, I learned about history in Syria (and to a lesser degree Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia and Libya.

It might be fairer to say that I have been exposed to and participated in debate, discussion, dispute with a wide variety of Middle East and North African discussants, Muslims of many stripes. I am also exposed to a wide variety of media and particular people making/reporting news and comment (I could probably give a three-hour 'talk' on Syria and its religious/political history).

I search out and digest a lot of 'data points' that purport to illuminate The Muslims -- from surveys to opinion pieces, from historical essays to intelligence dossiers. It's an ongoing project. It's challenging, frustrating at times. I haven't reached conclusions about The Muslims except to understand that "The Muslims" are about as varied as "The Christians."

I see you in the same category as William even as you disagree with him. I can't speak for him, but I think he does, too.

I like Tony a lot. I appreciate his perspective. I think we are both committed to Reason, sweet Reason. And I think that a face-to-face discussion between the two of us would probably bear much good fruit -- would lead to mutually-satisfactory agreements on facts.

Sometimes we know so well the detailed warrants for our own claims that we forget that the other discussants have little access to these warrants, experiences, and other building blocks of an opinion. Sometimes, with Tony (but of course with other OLers), I know or suspect or assume he has a lot of personal experiences that inform his present opinions -- but the details are not always apparent, they sometimes need to be teased out.

It is a feature/bug of online discussion that questions can be left hanging. In face-to-face discussion neither discussant can simply roll on over questions. Neither discussant can entirely evade the other's questions in conversation ("But let me ask you again, what evidence do you have that ...?").

If I were to have a real-life discussion with Tony on "The Muslims," I have no doubt that we could find agreement in many subject areas. We could get down to specifics, details, and better understand each other's conclusions by becoming much more familiar with each other's bases for particular opinions.

With regard to "The Muslims," my arguments often focus on generalizations that are poorly supported. These are epistemological issues for me -- how we 'know'(believe) such and so, how we best approach fraught questions, how to best assemble and challenge 'data points,' how we can best avoid the operation of bias and other cognitive errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to controlling terrorism is not waging war against a Muslim religion but breaking and controlling and confining Muslim state power which in turn sponsors terrorism. Young men do not repair to a religion to fight--that's just lubrication--they repair to a state or a state to be.

Brant,

This is how I understand it. And I believe this has to do with human nature. I find the notion silly of a religion or philosophy brainwashing people like an abstract puppet-master pulling on strings. The human mind does not work that way. Science is bearing this out, too.

A state comes with attractive possibilities for individuals: gaining power, social standing, a clear set of rules for ascending over others in reputation or wealth or influence, a source of traditions and culture, a way to protect and enforce physical boundaries, even a way to get attractive mates. A state also gives a person who believes in it a strong sense of individual identity while at the same time offering the feeling of safety that comes with belonging to a collective group.

I would not call religion a lubrication, though. It is the source of the core stories that identify the morality of the in-group that comprises the state. (Another source is the history of the state, especially the lives of the heroes. As an added thought, this also includes the history of the culture.) Social glue more than social lubrication.

You are totally right about one thing, though. Without a state or a promise of a state (or the reverse, the destruction of a state one deems too evil and oppressive to continue existing), nobody goes out in the name of a religion and commits violence. Irrespective of the religion. Ditto for philosophy.

Michael

When I say "lubrication" I'm referring to would be combatants embarking to a foreign shore, that's all. The idea of fighting Batista made me ponder going to Cuba as a 14yo and joining Castro not knowing he was a communist. In that case the lube was my romantic idea of fighting for freedom and the camaraderie of fellow freedom fighters. I also wanted to go to Hungary in 1956 (and take the whole country along with me) and blow up Soviet tanks. I was 12 then. When I learned the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and sunk the Arizona, it took me a long time emotionally to accept that war was over. I thus didn't regret dropping atom bombs on them, but feared those bombs as weapons. I also wanted to kill Nazi-killing Jews above all. This is why I love guns. To kill bad people needing killing now. I'm 70 yo and the only thing that's changed is I can't keep up with troops in their 20s and have to go to the bathroom too often. This is why I sit in my chair with a tactical 12 gauge in my lap waiting for the action to come to me with a glass of sipping whiskey at hand. Unfortunately, while I had some access to firearms as a kid thanks to my brother-in-law who took me deer hunting and by shooting 22s in my high school basement and boy scout camp, I wasn't allowed to drink alcohol. So I went to Vietnam. My A-Team had a nice little bar. Jennifer Jones came by and didn't mind all the Playboy centerfolds plastered on the walls. Sean Flynn too, but I took him for a fellow medic, not a journalist. He was killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia several years later not far from Moc Hoa where I was. (I had fought in Cambodia in Nov. 1966. The visit was unofficial and I did not taste the food or drink the water or stick around. [i didn't stick around Vietnam any longer than I had too too.])

--Brant

I only tell true stories, but it may be hard to ferret out any metaphors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be fairer to say that I have been exposed to and participated in debate, discussion, dispute with a wide variety of Middle East and North African discussants, Muslims of many stripes.

William,

That's actually what I meant. Or something very similar.

I was trying to contrast the difference between people who know about Muslim culture from experience and those who merely parrot opinions gained from Western culture by osmosis and hardened by fear and hatred.

As far as "The Muslims" go, my point with Tony (although I was not clear) was that each person who has experience with Muslim communities knows (on some level) how nonhomogeneous the Muslim world is. That's why extrapolating generalizations from experience, while better than doing that from the opinions of celebrities, is still open to correction.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not much point in animadverting on the Muslim religion for its irrationality without doing the same for all other religions and then it would just be more talk, talk, talk. Christian doctrine no longer powers crusades, but the empowering doctrines are still in place. Our tribe against your tribe, our God against your God. Here's your dispensation for slaughter. Now go get 'em!

--Brant

and the streets of Jerusalem ran with rivers of blood--it was glorious! (you couldn't kill enough of them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird little viral video that allowed Canadians to feel just a little bit smugger than usual. Headline from Global News.

Anti-Muslim social experiment viral video shows Canadians tolerance

In a video posted to YouTube, Omar Albach and his two friends created a social experiment where one actor dressed in traditional Islamic clothing would be confronted by another racist actor at a bus stop and ask him to step out of line over fears hes a possible terrorist. The video has gone viral, receiving

It's funny/sad. And it gets bloody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be fairer to say that I have been exposed to and participated in debate, discussion, dispute with a wide variety of Middle East and North African discussants, Muslims of many stripes.

William,

That's actually what I meant. Or something very similar.

I was trying to contrast the difference between people who know about Muslim culture from experience and those who merely parrot opinions gained from Western culture by osmosis and hardened by fear and hatred.

As far as "The Muslims" go, my point with Tony (although I was not clear) was that each person who has experience with Muslim communities knows (on some level) how nonhomogeneous the Muslim world is. That's why extrapolating generalizations from experience, while better than doing that from the opinions of celebrities, is still open to correction.

Michael

Michael: If only to pick up the one thread of a complex subject - this is true.

Experience teaches that the more you learn, the more is out there still to be known, and that one actually knows so little.

It goes big time for the category 'Muslim - Islam'.

However- at what point can and should one begin making and passing moral 'appraisals' about a religion and its adherents?

There's always one more fact, and one more -- as there's always one more person: the individual in his own right -- and life only allows us so much time.. Here's where William and I differ, in the method and the intent.

His search would take him deeper into a maze of complexity I believe, whereas I want to begin grouping facts and inferences into much more accessible chunks, all the better to evaluate people and moralities.

It happens I get round quite a lot and as hangover from the Press days, from interest and for enjoyment I talk and listen to individuals, a few of whom happen to be Muslim men. When it gets into more philosophical subjects (somehow it always does) I'm open about myself as part-Christian part-Jewish by birth and atheist by long conviction, to anyone who asks outright. This was seldom a problem with Muslims. The shared understanding with them, face to face, was usually this, in effect:

"Well, one has to come from somewhere and some background, and I see you are a fine and honest person, regardless or because of your beliefs".

(There could be some good-natured joshing about the very real possibility that I have some Arabian in me, since my mother's family were of the Spanish Jews who lived in Arab lands for centuries, before they moved to Palestine-Israel --and so forth).

In short, that has changed. Individuals I was quite friendly with (predating the Gazan war) have hardened their attitudes about 'the colonizing West and Zionism', and become irrational to the point I can't talk with them. Any prejudice is all theirs- I can tell I have become that despised Atheist-and-Israeli. Except, I didn't change; what has?

Extrapolating from many sources, I see this meme increasing in many places.

The relation between a religionist and his religion is a hugely variable, subjective and adaptable thing, whatever the religion. That is of course a basic fault of a Faith system. It is too, the nature of a faith to be collective. The extent that a single person retains his individuality, independent mind and humanity against the background of his religion, is all-critical in how he, and by extension, his religion can be assessed. It's worked for me in the good relations I have with Christians and Jews who think for themselves.

Recently, I am quite certain the slide of large numbers of Muslims has been towards the collectivist and conformist (authoritarian) end of the scale.

One influence could be that the prospect of collective power is hugely tempting, and much as I dislike conspiracy theories, it appears that over the last years some power-brokers within Islam ("Attilas" in league with "Witch Doctors"), have launched an insidious propaganda campaign world-wide.

Whatever -- Isn't it past time for the many (the majority, I assume) who do not want to be associated with those who have presumably hijacked their concept of Islam - to loudly speak up, in numbers? Can anyone point me to where this is happening?

My respect for the right of any person to practise religion - and my appreciation of their character as an individual - does not extend to giving him, for fear of seeming bigoted, a free moral pass. Followers of other, older religions have learned responsibility to themselves, over all. Muslims should become accustomed to considering themselves by those same standards, I think.

The Politically Correct liberal imperative is: one must tolerate and never judge ... at the risk of being perceived (judgmentally, it's ironic) "Islamaphobic", or "any-phobic". It has left Progressives impotently high and dry, without a moral compass to distinguish right from wrong. And that outcome is evident, politically and socially everywhere you look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever -- Isn't it past time for the many (the majority, I assume) who do not want to be associated with those who have presumably hijacked their concept of Islam - to loudly speak up, in numbers? Can anyone point me to where this is happening?

Tony,

Actually I don't think it is past time. I think it is happening right in front of our eyes. Right here on OL, for example, I recently put up a thread: Muslims Who Stand Up To Islamists -- Karima Bennoune.

Here in the USA there is a small but growing group of Muslims devoted to reforming Islam much in the same manner the Protestants split from the Catholics. They are in the news all the time.

The differences between different countries where Islam is practiced are enormous.

Not only that, look what Egypt did to The Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptians didn't just protest. They deposed a President, made The Muslim Brotherhood illegal, seized its assets and banned its members from ever running for office in Egypt. They did that against pressure from the USA (shame on Obama, too).

Is an entire country large enough to be included in "many"? :smile:

We live in a remote-control society where we demand instant answers to large-scale issues. When we don't like one show, we are used to clicking a button and getting another. But with reality, it takes time for certain changes to take root and grow.

On the other side of technology, though, I believe the Internet will be the death of Islamist fundamentalism. All young people go through a phase where they believe their parents and former generations are absolutely foolish. When information is controlled, it is possible to keep traditions in place long enough for this phase to pass. But not now. Information is no longer controlled.

I grant you, there is a lot of garbage on the Internet, but there is a treasure of good information, too.

I trust the minds of the young. I trust that enough of them will be curious. Some will move in a fundamentalist direction and become "radicalized," but I believe most will look at all the goodies enjoyed the world over, look at freedom, and look at all that information out there and believe in their hearts long-term that it is a new day where concepts like Caliphate are too primitive to take seriously--something like the way modern Western society currently considers worshiping pagan gods (or, in Christianity, doing horrible things like burning witches to the stake).

Western folks know that people used to do that in ancient times, and they see some fringe folks currently dressing up that way and acting foolish like in a costume party, but they consider actual worship in that manner as social glue terribly backward and no longer want to be a part of anything like that.

Don't forget that the idea of separating Islam from the state (like all separation of church and state), which I believe nobody has the power to stop or accelerate, has to grow out of countless clashes between young folks and their parents, then finding their own way as they get older. Try remote-controlling that. :smile:

I'm sorry the people you are in contact with have hardened their hearts. But in the things I see around me, these people do not represent the entire Muslim world. On the contrary, they are on the wrong side of history and will leave no legacy regarding what is coming.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal attitude about Muslims reforming Islam is I don't care. That is, they'll do it or not. I'm not into reforming anything religious myself so it rings no bells for me. Culturally I'm a complete WASP. This puts me somewhat at odds with Catholics. Also, even further, from Jews. But I'm so far away from "submission" and praying five times a day and spreading my religion by the sword I feel that my tribe is almost everyone who is not a member of that tribe, even communists (but not Nazis or the extinct Italian fascists of ill dupie).

That said, when you get into details that breaks down. Sunni ISIS are right now murdering other Sunnis who don't submit. In that sense, emotionally, I want to fight the former respecting the latter. This means my tribe is actually everyone who isn't ISIS. But the multiplicity of these tribal defaults again breaks down or changes when I consider the rulers of Iran and put them in my "OUT" box. In that sense I'm like Barry Goldwater who once suggested lobbing one into the men's room in the Kremlin.

--Brant

unemployed soldier contemplating targets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal attitude about Muslims reforming Islam is I don't care. That is, they'll do it or not. I'm not into reforming anything religious myself so it rings no bells for me. Culturally I'm a complete WASP. This puts me somewhat at odds with Catholics. Also, even further, from Jews. But I'm so far away from "submission" and praying five times a day and spreading my religion by the sword I feel that my tribe is almost everyone who is not a member of that tribe, even communists (but not Nazis or the extinct Italian fascists of ill dupie).

That said, when you get into details that breaks down. Sunni ISIS are right now murdering other Sunnis who don't submit. In that sense, emotionally, I want to fight the former respecting the latter. This means my tribe is actually everyone who isn't ISIS. But the multiplicity of these tribal defaults again breaks down or changes when I consider the rulers of Iran and put them in my "OUT" box. In that sense I'm like Barry Goldwater who once suggested lobbing one into the men's room in the Kremlin.

--Brant

unemployed soldier contemplating targets

Well said Brant.

Why the separation of the National Socialists from the Communists?

A...

target spotter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now