Since the conflict between the Shia and the Sunnis in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere isn’t about theology, why would that matter.
Beyond that why single out religious belief like that as opposed to say people’s political beliefs.
Where did I say anything about belief? I would single out the leaders, the people who try to shape others’ beliefs or attempt to profit from spreading religion. And, really, for that matter, anyone who tries to guide/marshal others arbitrarily should be given due consideration. Most leaders are basically just hungry for power.
Well, if you put Robert Warren and the Ayatollah Khamenei under the category of “leader” you have a rather broad and highly questionable definition of the term.
Beyond that, I’m not sure if there are enough jail cells in the world to hold every teacher, philosopher, politician, self-help guru, doctor, college professor, writer, journalist and probably a dozen or so professions I hadn’t even thought of that we’d have to jail for your idea to have a shred of credibility and consistency.
So what do you think about my solution Ibn?
No, I think it really is quite straightforward. Woo has easily recognizable characteristics. The spreading of woo is also easy to recognize, but the crime would initially be based on the spreader’s motivations. The purge would begin with the most notorious of the woo monsters, the ones with the largest groups of followers, and work its way down until the smaller guys go to ground. At that point, woo spreaders would have to be cautious, because one mole or disgruntled adherent in their congregation could be enough to out them.
For, say, journalists, it would be as easy as couching one’s words in uncertainty (“I believe that …”). For teachers, there is no need for them to be putting mystical garbage into children’s heads. For others, well, they had best not be trying to establish the validity of woo without a solid foundation (e.g., sufficient substantive evidence).
Personally, I would like to see the spreaders “disappeared”, but that is just my primal fantasy, it would work well enough to exile them to somewhere like Heard Island, to fend for themselves (and learn a bit of co-operation in place of hateful bile).
If you want to believe in blah-blah-blah, fine, go to town. Have your personal rituals and doctrine to your heart’s content, there will be no law against that. Just keep it in your own parlour, we have really come too far to still be putting up with religulous nonsense.
What does your hatred of Chinese people have to do with your irrational singling out of religious beliefs in comparison to all other beliefs, I.E. communism, zionism, Irish nationalism, etc.
Obviously what beliefs are “irrational” versus those that are “rational” is very much up for debate.
Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and the believers in eugenics all believed quite strongly that their beliefs were scientifically proven and ruthless repressed those with whom they disagreed with as you feel the need to do as well and for that matter, all were strongly supported by the top intellectuals and scientists of their day(Hitler the least obviously).
You may think that what you’re proposing is somehow clever and original, but in reality those of us from outside the free world are very familiar with those who wish to lock up blasphemers and protect the rest of us from learning information that others believe to be harmful.
Thankfully, the world is turning against them and we live in a country where people who believe in such things are usually forced to rage impotently against the world that fails to recognize their genius thwarted by democracy and freedom.
Obviously, the last part is not meant as a comment on you personally, just a general commentary on how it is for most people who propose what you propose but live in country like the US or the UK where they’re prevented from doing so as compared to Iran, North Korea, or the former Soviet Union where such beliefs could be enforced.
And no, I’m not suggesting you’re morally the equivalent of the Commissars or the Basij, though you obviously advocate in favor of their tactics and modified versions of their beliefs.
I’m reasonably certain if you thought about your the logical outcome of your proposed “Purge” and creation of giant concentration camps you’d rethink taking such a course of action.
I don’t know much about those groups, but IMHO the best way to prevent / solve ANY conflict is to enforce women’s rights to the hilt. If women’s rights are considered non negotiable, I’d bet that most of the other problems will then take care of themselves.
Since you’re asking, I guess I should answer.
Respectfully, I think it’s exceptionally short-sighted and grossly insensitive to people and cultures you probably know little about.
That said, first worlders believing that it part of the White Man’s burden to impose their beliefs on the brown people’s of the world is nothing new.
And no, I’m certainly not accusing you of being racist or even stupid.
Rudyard Kipling was a brilliant writer who’s work is admired by many today including several proud Indians I know who adore Kim.
But yes, there’s very much of a “why don’t those ignorant savages listen to us civilized people” vibe coming off your proposed solution and yes that’s contemptible.
I largely agree with this, but while women’s rights in the Middle East aren’t where they should be, I’d rather be a woman in Lebanon than in the PRC, India or most of sub-Saharran Africa.
Admittedly, I’m not sure how many if any countries in the world can really crow about women’s rights. Certainly with events like that in Steubensville, I’m always a bit cautious when it comes to lecturing other parts of the world when it comes to women’s rights.
You know, initially, the Sunni-Shi’a split was over who should be Caliph, and nobody even claims the title any more. You’d think that would make the breach easy to heal. But, it has gone on so long that the sects have developed different religious doctrines and cultural traditions. Nobody cares who might be Caliph any more, but they do know that those motherfucking goatfucking datestuffing Sunni/Shi’a bastards need to STFU or die.
It is over different interpretations of theology. I car pool every day with a Sunni Muslim who has told me her perspective of Shias and the division. It is originally over theology, and, of course, the Sunnis blame the Shias for being wrong.
The only way to stop the fighting is to stop the fighting. They are never going to agree on theological issues, who is right and who is wrong.
The way the Protestant/Catholic fighting in Ireland was stopped was the majority of the people just got tired of all the fighting. That’s going to be a lot harder because the problem with Muslims isn’t just in one country. Even if in one country they get tired of fighting and agreed to stop, that leaves a whole lot of other countries where they will keep fighting. As far as I can see, they are always going to despise each other.
It is similar to a long term feud, the Hatfields and McCoys. It goes back so long that it is embedded into their consciousness and they have now different doctrines and traditions. They just despise each other, no matter what. The only way to change things is to get them to be more ‘mature’ and accept their differences and co-exist harmoniously without rancor. Just agree to disagree and agree to respect each other. We have had similar things in Christianity over time. Remember that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. What were Christians doing 600 years ago? Fighting with each other.
Both right and wrong. It was originally over politics. Whatever the views of your friend it was not a conflict that started with religions doctrine, it was a conflict over leadership succession. Since said politics involving leadership of what was then functionally a theocracy, it morphed into the theological. But the doctrinal differentiation took considerable time to mature. As late as the 8th century Abbasid revolution just who constituted the Shi’a communities was in some flux - those that were content with any descendant of Muhammad taking the helm ( in this cases descendants of his uncle Abbas ) merged into the Sunni mainstream at that point.
These days you can point to genuine theological differences and the hardest of the hardcore among the salafist-Islamists might make hay of them ( far fewer Shi’a actually do ). But for the most part animosities, when they exist and they don’t always do, are usually driven mostly by local rivalries, with religious apologia tacked on. You should read how Iraq became majority Shi’a - it wasn’t because a bunch of people became convinced by evangelists of what was really the true faith.
Anyway, as to the OP the answer is: nothing. If you’ll pardon me it is kind of a naive question. There is no outside answer or magic wand, just like there is no answer to my Serb relatives more or less defining themselves tribally by their religious differentiation from their co-linguists the Croats. People will grow out of their petty tribalism when they do and there isn’t all that much you can do to hasten it. Education, intermarriage, different sorts of nationalism overriding the religious versions ( basically new versions of tribalism overwriting the old, even to as simple a thing as devoting themselves to the same sports team ) - anything can help or might work. But at the end of the day it will be an organic process and there will be no simple solutions.
Well I thank you for your honest opinion. I agree and disagree.
Its grossly insensitive, but not short-sighted and I know enough about their culture. I don’t have to be an Imam or an Islamic scholar to know that this religious conflict is of little rational objective substance, and all about how one guy thinks people should worship versus another guy. I don’t care about them, basically, and I think this conflict should end as quickly as possible. So picking one side hopefully emboldens them to do whatever it is they need to do to marginalize the other.
Don’t think of that as any type of white man’s burden. Think of it as a guy who is sick of religious conflict. I would propose the same deal with Catholics and Protestants. Just pick a side, say other side is wrong, and be done with it
And the only people I consider savages are religious people. Its not about Arabs or Muslims specifically, or Iranians, or Saudis. Its religious people.
I wonder just why from a European perspective stopping them fighting would be a good idea. It seems to be good fortune that they would rather cut each others throats (largely) in their own countries rather than for a united front against us…
Yes, of course. We should divide and conquer. After all, they are the enemy. :rolleyes:
Er … you are aware that there are both Sunni and Shi’ite citizens of the US, aren’t you?
Forcible conversion to the True Faith.
Well, they didn’t stop fighting with each other, you know. But, they did stop fighting over Christianity.