:dubious: “Most” as in over 50% of current Muslim population, probably. But again, that’s not the same thing as “Islam” in general.
Kimstu, are you actually endorsing the notion that
Because I want to see several cites from several rigorous research groups before I believe over 50% of the Islamic world follows or seeks “radical-islamist” theocratic rule. I guess it would depend on how you define “radical” and “islamist”, but I don’t think our respective understanding of those terms is that different.
Actually, I did advocate precisely this.
I would be more than willing to take the “40 acres and a mule”, for each descendant of enslaved persons from the border region, along the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line. But given the obvious obstacles to such a plan, a good start would be to get black people out of all those red Southern states and encourage them to move to purple states in the North.
Ill-informed people like the Pakistani men who specifically named their Muslim faith as the reason they believed honor killings were appropriate?
No, I’m certainly not claiming that over 50% of the world’s Muslims necessarily seek or endorse such theocratic rule. But I think it’s not unreasonable to estimate that over 50% of Muslims are subject to governmental systems that could be so described.
Adding up on our fingers, we’ve got Pakistan and Afghanistan with about 11% and 2% respectively of global Muslim population, much of which I think it’s fair to say is theocratically dominated. If we count all the Middle East/North Africa Muslim-majority nations in that group, which is admittedly an overestimate but we’re talking ballpark here, that’s another 20% of Muslims worldwide. If that’s somewhere around 30% total, then scraping together the Muslims who are effectively theocratically governed in Aceh, in parts of Bangladesh and various sub-Saharan African countries… yeah, I still wouldn’t be surprised if the total exceeded 50%.
But I didn’t realize how questionable some of those numbers are. A lot of places that are popularly perceived as official Islamic theocracies actually have a formally secular civil government and a high proportion of Muslim population pushing back hard against theocratic movements.
Again, you’re getting confused about the distinction between specific radical fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and “Islam” in general.
Sure, most people who advocate harming others will cite their interpretation of some ideology or other to justify their position. But that doesn’t mean that the ideology as a whole is responsible for it.
Similarly, there are plenty of self-professed Christians who support violence against homosexuals because they’re “defying God’s will” or whatever. But that doesn’t mean that it’s accurate to claim that the cause of homophobic violence in Christian-majority countries today must be Christianity itself.
I think it’s certainly a major factor.
If people would stop carelessly saying “the cause” or “the problem” when all they mean is “a major factor”, there’d be a lot less time wasted in these arguments.
Presumably, you understand that even though condemnation of homosexuality in traditional Christian theology is a factor contributing to modern homophobic violence in Christian-majority countries, it’s far too simplistic to say that Christianity itself is “the cause” of such violence.
We have to take into account the facts that most Christians don’t commit homophobic violence, that some liberal Christian organizations actively use their Christian beliefs to delegitimize homophobic violence, etc.
Somehow, a lot of people seem completely incapable of understanding the existence of a similar level of complexity when it comes to Muslim-majority countries.
And for some reason I’ve never seen one of the many “religion=homophobia” anti-religion atheists acknowledge or account for the persistence of homophobia in officially atheist China, where marriage is legally defined as a union of a man and a woman and state media regulations ban the television depiction of homosexual relationships. :dubious:
Interesting about China. They are certainly not a shining example of much of anything.
I think all your hairsplitting between “the cause” and “a major factor” is a bit pedantic and legalistic, however.
And yet 61% of Chinese identify as explicitly atheist and another 29% as “nonreligious”. Where’s all that non-shiningness coming from if they haven’t got religion, especially that awful Muslim religion, messing things up?
Okay, so you don’t object if I say that “atheism is the cause of homophobia in China”? Good to know.
Because, given that the Chinese state ideology that considers religion illusory also considers homosexual relationships “abnormal” and a threat to stable rational materialist society, it would be “pedantic” to quibble over the details of that ideology or try to take into account historical and cultural factors. That’s just hairsplitting.
It’s not great, Bob. I won’t sugarcoat it. But it does seem like they’re into a lot of woo b******* that doesn’t make them fully atheistic in the way I would define it. They are endangering rare animals by trying to get various body parts for snake oil medicines, and my Chinese friends have told me that many people actually believe in that Chinese astrology nonsense you see on placemats at Chinese restaurants.
:dubious: Kind of True-Scotsmanish, though? Sorry, but they don’t believe in a god, they’re not accepting any ancient sacred book as divine revelation: ergo, they’re atheists.
If a liberal Muslim told you that repressive violent Islamist theocrats weren’t “fully Muslim in the way he would define it” and consequently their actions shouldn’t count as discreditable to Islam, I doubt you’d call that a legit argument.
And even when some radical is actually charged and put to death, look at the scale of some of their supporters trying to prevent the judgement.
To the snowflakes that would be right there with them on the grounds that all government executions are barbaric and intolerable… that was not their concern. Their concern is that the bodyguard that murdered his own client he was tasked to protect for speaking out against blasphemy laws, THAT guy should not be punished for his crimes.
You’d think OK, maybe a few crazies might support something so radical… tens of thousands came out to defend him.
Atheism, or rationalism, whatever we call it, has a more bright line definition than do individual religions, by definition. You can’t believe in gods, but also not in astrology, lucky charms, Ouija boards, seances, New Age crap about getting energy from crystals. None of that woo.
Well people like me don’t see a monolith, we see cultures and societies progressing at different rates towards modernity.
Kind of like how even modern societies progress at different rates in relation to prohibition, gay marriage, illegal drugs, worker rights and protection, reigning in capitalism - or not, the death penalty, gun legislation, etc, etc.
It’s a strange morality that is so concerned for what happens in the tribal lands of Pakistan in relation to murder of family but not extra judicial state murder by drones operated out of California offices.
I’m so sick of peaceniks whining about drones. A lot of them idolize FDR and see WWII as the last “just war”, but that was the age of carpet bombing population centers! Drones aren’t perfect, but they are so much more surgical and precise in terms of avoiding mass civilian casualties, not to mention devastation of infrastructure.
Riiight. And that all lines up in a coherent moral fashion in your head.
Actually you’re right, if they’re going to die anyway at the hands of the fathers and brothers, lets at least make it quick and … explosive. You’re actually doing them a favour, if they only knew it.
I’m sure it gives you great satisfaction to style yourself as so much more humane than Barack Obama. Maybe they should take back his Nobel Peace Prize and give it to you. :rolleyes:
None of this is about me. It’s your thread.
A lot of people got a look into your world.
It’s “about” anyone who posts in the thread. And you offered up a holier-than-thou denunciation of President Obama’s drone policy. That’s about you.