WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

[ClimbingPanther]

Now, to your next topic... They can look anywhere they damn well please where people are engaging in peaceful public discourse of divergent ideas. That is how truly enlightened populations work out their differences.

You may be wrong here, sobo. The folks you're arguing against seem to think that enlightened populations should work out their differences by barricading entrances.

[sobo]

...Since when did an opinion instantly get labled "moronic" as soon as it diverged from one's own?...

As soon as it was posted on cc.com. Such is this little interweb world in which we live...

[tvashtarkatena]

...just a bunch of stupid fucking white morons who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground regarding that topic.

 

"Oh, but I've read a lot about it..."

 

tvash, I'm assuming that you're referring to me by that remark, so I'll bite that bait...

 

Since I do not ever intend upon becoming a Muslim (or a Jew, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindi, or Zoroaster, or returning to any form of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter), the first best option of self-immersion is not open to me by my own volition. The next best option, personal observation of the source material, is also problematic for me, since I'd probably be killed within a few days for expressing any sort of contrary opinion in their host country. So I'm left with but a paltry third option, that of reading what I can about the subject material, from as many varied viewpoints as possible.

 

Do you have some other option which I might employ to better educate my stupid fucking white moronic ass on these matters?

 

Dood, you're so paranoid. After all, I used a plural. But you get my point. None of us knows jack shit about Islam, particularly in its hundreds of various incarnations, but we sure like to spray about it alot.

 

Is there a token Muslim in the house? Can I get a Muslim?

[sexual_chocolate]

ah yes, that would solve it.

 

much like seahawks solves our riddle about christianity....

[tvashtarkatena]

He's about all I need to know on the subject....

[sexual_chocolate]

so with that in mind, bin laden (or, insert your chosen variable representing some form of intolerant fundamentalist idiocy) is about all you'd need to know on the subject of islam.

 

actually, this is a rather poor example, since bin laden has a somewhat sophisticated thought process....

[prole]

Sobo, You're the one that suggested that the Muslim World take a look around at the rest of the world and evolve or become enlightened. Where should "they" look?

 

Furthermore, this,

Once again, Islam, ostensibly a religion of tolerance and peace, shows it's true fundamentalist colors.

is bigoted nonsense, and inconsistent with your subsequent statements

See my last post on the bottom of the first page of this thread. That statement was made in haste, and I thought it was harsh at the time I wrote it, and I later retracted its implied inclusivity. However, I will not retract any statement I've made previously that fundamentalists and/or extremists get a free pass from me to exhibit intolerance and violent over-reactions, to include stonings to death and pre-meditated murder.

 

Now, to your next topic... They can look anywhere they damn well please where people are engaging in peaceful public discourse of divergent ideas. That is how truly enlightened populations work out their differences.

 

Fine. Thanks for the clarification. We are in some agreement on religious extremism. What is at issue is the essentializing of an entire religious group based on the actions of a few who were until very recently, marginal actors. Despite claims that violent extremism is "hardwired" into Islam, the rise of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and figures like Sayyid Qutb, al-Zawahiri, and bin Laden are well documented and understood. Militant political Islam is an historical phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Secondly, I've a problem with the implicit assumption that the developmentally retarded "muslim world" need only look to Western civilization to solve its problems. Again, this view overlooks the very real and lengthy historical relationship between Muslim and Arab populations and "the West". Further, it whitewashes the deeply disfunctional economic and political realities were facing right now. I reject the moral pretense used to justify blatant aggression if only because these very same people waging the wars are opposed to even paying lip service to racial/gender equality and human rights in any other context except the muslim one.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

but how many bees do you need to know before you are a subject matter expert on them, hmmmm?

[prole]

Human societies and their history are not bees. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al. might wish they had considered this fact in 2002.

[JayB]

"I reject the moral pretense used to justify blatant aggression if only because these very same people waging the wars are opposed to even paying lip service to racial/gender equality and human rights in any other context except the muslim one."

 

1)You seem to be equating criticism and condemnation with aggression.

 

2)Even if one accepts your closing proposition at face value (who is the one doing the essentializing here, exactly?), this argument seems to rest on something along the lines of "Anyone who fails to support living wage legislation is in *no* position to condemn honor-killings, forced marriage, or suicide bombings."

Or do I misunderstand your line of reasoning here?

 

3. Minor Anecdote.

"However, by 1783 America became solely responsible for the safety of its own commerce and citizens with the end of the Revolution. Without the means or the authority to field a naval force necessary to protect their ships in the Mediterranean, the nascent U.S. government took a pragmatic, but ultimately self-destructive route. In 1784, the United States Congress allocated money for payment of tribute to the Barbary pirates.

 

Use for the money came in 1785, when the Dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks ("Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"). His objections fell on the deaf ears of an inexperienced American government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

 

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say "no", although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn.

 

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

 

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven."

 

If the invocations to violence, the punishments meted out in Sharia courts etc find no sanction in either the Koran or the Hadith - from where to they come, and are those who invoke them in the present mistaken in their sincere belief that they are acting in accordance with the perogatives of their faith? If Qutb was articulating sentiments that were completely antithetical to the various traditions of Islam, how does one explain their resonance in his time, and during the present?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well then. That solves that one.

[JayB]

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

[sobo]

...Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

And who have those pesky death sentences upon their heads, no matter where they may go to seek safety, merely for having left their religion behind.

[JayB]

Human societies and their history are not bees. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al. might wish they had considered this fact in 2002.

 

"Blooop...Bloooop.....Blooop.......BOOOM."

 

Irony meter going critical after a disciple of Marx makes this statement....

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

What is at issue is the essentializing of an entire religious group based on the actions of a few who were until very recently, marginal actors.

 

yes, any thoughtful person has a problem with this. i personally am more curious about the ones you consider "essentialized", and what their take on current events is. I would suspect the breakdown is much akin to the breakdown of the "western" "christian" "group", with thought processees representing various levels of enlightenment (and this level of enlightenment has nothing to do with one's group identification, since to me, "enlightenment" naturally matures to a loss of such identification....)

 

Militant political Islam is an historical phenomenon, not a metaphysical one.

 

i don't think there is a discrete differentiation between the two; the concept of "metaphysics" is entirely a "historical phenomenon" in the sense that ALL concepts have a history and are intimately enmeshed within this historical context (using a word as somehow devoid of its historicity i think belies the actual conditionality of the word).

Further, it elides the connections between political islam and islam itself. the movements you mention have ALL identified with the core "teachings" of Muhammed, interpreting them as they see fit.

We can talk about actual conditions, and justifications for one's positions etc etc, but i think it's important to understand what kind of world a proponent of particular ideas may wish for.

 

Secondly, I've a problem with the implicit assumption that the developmentally retarded "muslim world" need only look to Western civilization to solve its problems.

 

again, any thoughtful person would have a problem with this. are there any here that don't?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

 

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East.

 

Most folks, 'Them', and 'Us', are cool, and just want to be left alone. Along come 'you pricks', who point to 'them', and say, "what a bunch of assholes; it's fundamental to their religion".

 

Clear enough?

 

Fucking prick.

[sexual_chocolate]

you obviously have not heard the story of sunshine and storm, have you? little boy is in it too.

[JayB]

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

 

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East.

 

Most folks, 'Them', and 'Us', are cool, and just want to be left alone. Along come 'you pricks', who point to 'them', and say, "what a bunch of assholes; it's fundamental to their religion".

 

Clear enough?

 

Fucking prick.

 

 

Ad Yawninem.

 

I'll add that you are the first person I look to for carefully constructed and nuanced critiques of religious doctrine.

 

What puzzles me is the fact that you make no such concessions on behalf of fundamentalist or born-again Christians. No tortured pleading that the folks who sanction violence against doctors who perform abortions, no nuanced consideration of the larger sociopolitical currents that may have conditioned the beliefs of the opponents of gay marriage, no labored rhetorical chiaroscuro employed on behalf of the belief system that supports the creationist outlook. Yet we see this reflexive bristling at the very idea that the doctrines within Islam, the imams who interpret it, the convictions of those who behave in what they believe to be strict accordance with its dictates - have any essential connection with the set of ideas that constitutes the faith.

 

What gives? And what response do you have - can you have? - to the people who were either born into or converted to Islam and have since renounced it, and who have submitted critiques of Islam that far exceed anything that I've put forth? Clearly, even if one were to accept the proposition that you've extended: that one cannot take a position on say, the jizya, unless one is a Muslim - which is a transparent absurdity that simply can't be defended, we're still left with this question. What about the infinitely greater number of people who live in majority Muslim states that are born into the faith and have to choose between suffering quietly or the very real prospect of *true* martyrdom for speaking, acting, or living in a manner that contradicts the doctrines of the Koran or the prerogatives of Sharia as they are understood by, and which largely govern, the societies that they live in?

 

If you choose to respond, I hope that you can muster something more compelling than what you've put forth here.

 

 

[pink]

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

 

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East.

 

Most folks, 'Them', and 'Us', are cool, and just want to be left alone. Along come 'you pricks', who point to 'them', and say, "what a bunch of assholes; it's fundamental to their religion".

 

Clear enough?

 

Fucking prick.

 

like this politician

 

BnceSIxxOYg

 

 

 

[ZimZam]

Cartoon reprinted in Danish newspapers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7242258.stm

 

Put that in your juice box, and suck on it.

[pink]

fucking moral-less cartoonists!!

 

 

 

[archenemy]

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

 

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East.

 

Most folks, 'Them', and 'Us', are cool, and just want to be left alone. Along come 'you pricks', who point to 'them', and say, "what a bunch of assholes; it's fundamental to their religion".

 

Clear enough?

 

Fucking prick.

 

 

Ad Yawninem.

 

I'll add that you are the first person I look to for carefully constructed and nuanced critiques of religious doctrine.

 

What puzzles me is the fact that you make no such concessions on behalf of fundamentalist or born-again Christians. No tortured pleading that the folks who sanction violence against doctors who perform abortions, no nuanced consideration of the larger sociopolitical currents that may have conditioned the beliefs of the opponents of gay marriage, no labored rhetorical chiaroscuro employed on behalf of the belief system that supports the creationist outlook. Yet we see this reflexive bristling at the very idea that the doctrines within Islam, the imams who interpret it, the convictions of those who behave in what they believe to be strict accordance with its dictates - have any essential connection with the set of ideas that constitutes the faith.

 

What gives? And what response do you have - can you have? - to the people who were either born into or converted to Islam and have since renounced it, and who have submitted critiques of Islam that far exceed anything that I've put forth? Clearly, even if one were to accept the proposition that you've extended: that one cannot take a position on say, the jizya, unless one is a Muslim - which is a transparent absurdity that simply can't be defended, we're still left with this question. What about the infinitely greater number of people who live in majority Muslim states that are born into the faith and have to choose between suffering quietly or the very real prospect of *true* martyrdom for speaking, acting, or living in a manner that contradicts the doctrines of the Koran or the prerogatives of Sharia as they are understood by, and which largely govern, the societies that they live in?

 

If you choose to respond, I hope that you can muster something more compelling than what you've put forth here.

 

A perfect articulation of this argument. I can't wait for the response.

 

Well?

[sobo]

Yes, well-articulated. I, too, am waiting anxiously for the rejoinder.

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East.

 

I'm for live and let live. Pretty simple. I'm not for authoritarian pricks, such as yourself, who use the actions of a minority of extremist assholes to paint an entire religion with a large rifle target, for, after all, that is your final solution here, isn't it? The elimination of Islam? The final zeelolution? If not, then what is your proposed solution? You have none. You rarely put forth an actual opinion on this board; incredible, considering the industrial amount of verbage you produce, and you've never offered anything on this subject other than "Islam is bad". I lump you, other Bush supporters, and the Taliban in the same category: you're not live and let live types. You're hate mongers. Some of you are "well meaning" hate mongers, but you're hate mongers, nonetheless.

 

The Muslims I know and work with really love their religion. They represent none of the stereotypes you and your kind spend copious amounts of energy promulgating, despite a complete dearth of personal experience. Most of the Muslim world is similarly moderate. The Wahabiists may grab the headlines, but you never fail to help them amplify their case.

 

As for Christians, same rules apply. I've been clear on this. Respect the constitutional seperation of church and state, and I'm fine with you. Start trying to impose your bullshit through government, and I'm your enemy.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think we've seen enough of these rejoinders:

 

It's you pricks... blah blah blah... ad hominem... pricks... blah blah blah ... dumbass... blah blah.

 

Yeah, brilliant, convincing, and so endearing.