No, Bridget, I have decided to renew, unless Tomndeb has me banned. But there is a new provision. I am no longer allowed to hold a gun to your head and force you to read my postings, as I have been able to do so far. You will be free not to read my postings if you don’t like them! Isn’t that a wonderful improvement?
Do you really get outraged at an art student for not being comfortable with drawing nudes? It seems a little silly to me, but hardly worthy of outrage, even amongst born and bred westerners some people are uncomfortable with nudity (my college was hardly puritanical, but the art class allowed people to opt out of drawing nude models if they weren’t comfortable).
In anycase, I doubt that if you were to ask anyone to name something that seperates western culture from that of the rest of the world, I doubt “art depciting nudes” would be anywhere in the top 100.
Especially since it would be completely false. Nude figures have been portrayed for millennia in the artistic traditions of India, for example, and I believe in Southeast Asia as well.
No, we haven’t. We also haven’t dropped the idea of stoning adulterers or any of the the other crimes for which death is commanded.
We no longer have a properly appointed sanhedrin to conduct trials and sentence people to death. If we had such courts, stonings would still take place.
Valteron you’ve now exposed your ignorance about Judaism as well.
Surely talking about any large group identification requires talking in general, not absolute, terms. We don’t interrupt every statement that “FOX News viewers” are less informed with angry denunciations that “My Uncle Bob is a staunch liberal who watches FOX News to keep track of the enemy, and he’s not uninformed. You can’t say all FOX News viewers are less informed!” It’s assumed the speaker is talking about the group in general terms, because it’s obvious.
I generally stay out of Islam threads, because they always seem to end up with the same two groups of well-meaning people talking past each other. One group is concerned, justifiably, with racism/bigotry, since most Muslims in the West belong to minority ethnic groups. They worry that unless great pains are taken to emphasize that not all Muslims are “bad,” there will be more racial stereotyping, profiling, hatred.
The second group is concerned that there are multiple countries where women face a kind of gender apartheid and restrictive double standards, where censorship and blasphemy laws are common, where prudish and sexually repressive blue laws prevail. They want to see these countries denounced, the same way we denounced South Africa. And they certainly don’t want to see these undesirable ideas making any inroads at all in the West, which has only recently shed the Christian-flavored versions of the very same ideas.
Group 1 hears Group 2 and thinks: Why are you being racist? But Group 2 isn’t really being racist. Group 2 hears Group 1 and thinks: Why are you defending sexism? But Group 1 isn’t really defending sexism. Sometimes language is a tricky thing and ends up obfuscating rather than clarifying, and that certainly seems to be the case whenever Islam comes up. I wish I knew why.
You missed at least one quite vocal group that comes to play at these parties: the confirmed xenophobes who feel utterly compelled to post that “those people are different and we must fear them” (even when their knowledge of the feared group can only be measured by the dram or milliliter).
Oh yeah? Try saying “FOX News viewers are less informed” to any bunch of well-informed conservatives who watch FOX News. You’ll be sharply reminded of the necessity of qualifying your statements and avoiding sweeping overgeneralizations.
If you mean “Studies indicate that the average FOX News viewer is less well informed about current events than the average CNN viewer”, then that’s what you need to say.
In any case, many of Valteron’s sweeping statements about Muslims don’t even apply to the majority of Muslims, so your “general terms” apologia falls to the ground.
I suspect it’s because angry people tend not to think clearly, and unclear thinking tends to produce imprecise and erroneous statements.
I totally support these concerns. But I don’t think that they justify sloppy overgeneralizations and accusations directed at innocent people.
Let us by all means condemn whatever customs, laws and beliefs we find to be immoral, and let us strive to uphold our own moral principles and vigilantly defend our right to profess them. But let’s not weaken our case by gratuitous bigotry.
As I noted earlier, most of Valteron’s policy recommendations about maintaining modern Western ideals of pluralism and secularism in modern Western societies are actually not very controversial at all. I’d bet that almost every poster in this thread would be willing to admit that they’re reasonable.
But Valteron has made it very clear that he’s not really interested in finding common ground in support of reasonable policies to “defend Western values”. What he’s really interested in is merely saying nasty things about “ISLAM”. Continuing the discussion isn’t worth it to him if it means drawing distinctions between different kinds of Muslim cultures and beliefs, and giving up his broad generalizations and contemptuous remarks about Muslims as an undifferentiated group. He doesn’t actually care about the policy issues, AFAICT; he’s just using them as an excuse to insult Islam and Muslims in general, as well as everyone who refuses to join him in insulting Islam and Muslims in general.
So how many German-Americans who had immigrated into the United States, or were descendants of said immigrants, worked to destroy the United States during the Second World War?
I never understand this argument. How do you know if they were, say Atheist, that they’d do the same thing? I’d say it would be highly unlikely that it would occur. Without the religion that particular conflict would not exist.
Hmmm…not sure what you’re getting at, but you may have missed the point of my sarcasm. I’m not saying that hate is a Western value - rather that it appears to be such only in Valteron’s mind.
Nice clear-headed post. Thank you.
I would only have to second Tomndeb’s amendment that there is a Group 3 who are in fact just flat-out bigots. Or who have anyway been listening a little too much to the neocon’s World War III rhetoric. I’ve talked to some very scary examples of these who advocate the proactive use of nuclear weapons to eliminate the “enemy.” The enemy being Islam. No joke. They’re for real.
As proof that Islam is a violent religion, you present the Skeptics Annotated Bible’s list of “Cruelty in the Quran”. I am happy to accept your cite, and believe that it is well reseached. Theirs is a diverse list, relating 494 references to violence in the Quran.
However, I note that they link from this to their list Cruelty and Violence in the Bible, which relates 858 references to violence in the Bible.
From your evidence, should I now believe that Christians are 1.74 times as violent as Muslims. If so, are Christians now a greater threat to my way of life than Muslims, or is it ok because their violent tendencies are part of our culture?
Oh really? So no wars have ever been fought over tribe or colour or nationality? Gee, I guess my 10 years of Conflict Studies taught me nothing about war at all.
Fact is that it is a huge myth that ‘all wars are religious wars’. They are not. They are wars over land, wealth, or rebellion against mistreatment. In this case, the underlying issue is the perception by some section of fundies in the Middle East that their part of the world has been royally screwed over by the West for a very long time. And, because this batch of fundies is fundie, they blame it on the West being a vast mass of godless heathens who love money above people and peoples’ rights.
Given the kinds of things which have been foisted on other nations by certain Western superpowers, one can hardly blame some folk for their fury. That they have hung their fury on religion in this case is immaterial. That they claim to have found justification in their religious scripture in this case is as meritless as the gay-bashers who say the Bible tells them so.
The root cause of war has nothing to do with religion. The subsequent layers of cultural nuance which eventually appear to people to be the ‘real’ causes of war are just face value. It is necessary to do a much more thorough examination of the root cause of a war before you can say you truly understand what it’s about.
I guess if you feel ripped off you could ask for your money back. :dubious:
Fact is that it is a huge myth that ‘all wars are religious wars’.
[/QUOTE]
People fight over many things other than religion, nor did I say that wasn’t the case. But stop trying to pretend that things like Israel vs. Palestine is anything but religious. If it had been another ME nation taking over Palestine back in the 40’s, we’d have heard nary a peep from the rest of the ME even if that nation had killed every single Palestinian. It is the same thing in Iraq. For what other reason are the Shia and Sunni killing each other than one is Shia and the other is Sunni? Take away that differentiation and who except some small groups would be left to fight with each other? And if the religious aspect wasn’t there would there be as many foreign fighters going to Iraq? Doubtful.
Stop making excuses for religion. It is not the only reason people fight, but it is right up there with the best of them.
Anti-white racism is alive and well and living at the SDMB.
How ironic that talk of the ‘clash of civilizations’ is exactly the sort of vile paranoid claptrap spouted by extreme right-wing (not to say neo-nazi…) political groups when they’re are campaigning for office.
I was under the impression that when enough xeno/islamaphobia is stirred up, this is precisely when ‘fascist types’ do win elections - local elections at least, in the case of the British National Party.
Ah, you’re another victim of the infamous Tomndeb…
You never held a gun to my head. This thread reminds me of a wreck on the highway. I know I shouldn’t look–but I did!
How many Muslims do you know, personally?
Although it’s true that the West has put the Middle East through some difficult times, blaming suicide bombers on our meddling is ill placed. One should place it at the feet of radical Islam fueled by notions of martyrdom. Of course, saying we deserve it can be quite satisfying in a “you reap what you sow” mindset but it’s interesting to think what would happen if the rest of the world thought that way. For instance, China would be suffering waves of terrorism from Tibet. Of course, Tibetans hold worldviews that make that out of the question…
And, naturally, the U.S. really would have to set up a border fence with Mexico because our southern states would be lighting up like a Christmas tree from all the Latin American suicide bombers. We’ve historically screwed over our southern neighbors way more than the Middle East and there’s nary a peep from them (although maybe the Iraqi war will place them on an equal standing). We’d also have been mass suicide bombed for our roles in Vietnam or the Philippines. Or heck, even post WWII Japan –- at least they had the kamikaze tradition as a potential segue.
The “clash of civilization” language amuses me since a clash, to me anyway, implies two strong opponents going at it. The Cold War was a clash. World War II was a clash (or many). This would be…a whimper, really. Our culture is good at spreading and absorbing. It’s already doing that in totalitarian regimes -– in a free society they haven’t a chance.
Things could get interesting with nukes though. I’m OK with Pakistan having the bomb since I don’t live in India. Ditto Iran, since I have no relatives in Tel Aviv, New York, L.A., or Washington D.C. As long as they leave Chicago alone I’m cool with them.
Sorry, I am on a fixed outrage budget and there is only room for one of them. I guess the OP is going to have to convince me to be outraged about some Muslim girl in Toronto instead of being outraged about the former Attorney General.