I’m sure things like that never happen in civilized places…
I agree with this. I think that radical Islam quite often filled the gap left by communism wrt hopes in a better, more just, idealized, world.
No, the religion cannot so develop, but the culture in which it is embedded can.
I think that this is spot on. For the most part “religious” violence has at its root feelings of economic, political and/or cultural oppression. Religion is just tacked on because it makes it easier to convince people to take actions that are normally viewed as foolhardy, irrational or immoral if they believe that there will be a reward for them beyond this life. This is why making a war on Islam would be counter productive as it will just further motivate those who feel their culture is under attack. A much better strategy would be to find way to alleviate the underlying issues, but that requires much more delicacy and is less satisfying than just bombing them to kingdom come.
I too think it could get better. The longer ISIS is at it, committing atrocities against the locals, other Muslims, the more their barbaric ways are put on display and called out. It’s not like it was in the 70’s when 2/3 of Muslims around the world didn’t have a TV. They’re all seeing these atrocities being committed in the name of their religion and to other Muslims. All the bad things are being showcased for the world and moderate Muslims might start demanding those extremist
elements be removed from the religion and their governments. Could be the beginning of an Islamic spring. That’s why I say we should stay the hell out of it; keep it contained and let it rage on.
No. Jihadists are living in the past.
In a past where people believe in allowing religion to dictate society.
A past where males dominate women and subject them to oppressive practices.
A past where the goal is a global Caliphate centered around a specific religion and the teachings of that religion.
Jihadists, by their very use of the word, are waging a Jihad against Westernism and, by extension, modern secularism.
To describe it as anything other than “living in the past” is limp-wristed apologia.
[QUOTE=UDS]
Oh, come on, now. There’s no sense in which anything done by the IRA was done “in the name of Christ” and while Breivik’s position is deeply confused, it seems that he was an atheist who used religion as a cultural marker to provide a sense of identity.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for one thing, the IRA never appealed to Catholic theology because the majority of its leaders were anti-religious Marxists. In that sense, the IRA was closer to the Chechnyans than to ISIS, fighting a tribal struggle in which religion was a nominal cultural marker rather than actually playing a role in defining the struggle.
In contrast, al Qaida has long made an issue of its Islamic roots and ISIS is currently wooing people from Europe and North America on the basis of its Islamic “purity”, (never mind that every major Muslim group has condemned its actions).
And the Irish Troubles were never really about whether the Virgin Mary should be venerated or not, etc.
It is true that Jihadists try strongly and apparently sincerely to demonstrate continuity with early Islam to legitimize their objectives. But so do progressive Muslims. Meanwhile the American founding fathers talked constantly about Greece and Rome. Using the past to critique the present is common. It is very much a reality, right now, for people to think that religion should dictate society, or that men should be above women, or even that a Caliphate be re-established. Jihadists are not just saying, “we should be like we were in the before time”, they are also saying “modernity is bullshit and we should reject it for a better alternative.” If we are going to argue for modern liberal values, we have to convincingly address both of these claims. I think that saying that they are living in the past limits us to recognizing the existence of only the first claim, and that’s a big blind spot. It’s the mistake that secularist governments in Muslim majority countries all over have made for a century.
Please expand on that.
(With regard to your first claim)
I don’t know how anyone can convince retrospective Muslims to stop idealizing a past that likely never was nearly as grand as they are wont to believe. The same can be said of (typically elderly) Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., who all may believe that times were better when religion was a more dominant force in society. So much of the progress of secularism (whether you agree or not with the idea that increased secularism is primarily responsible for societal evolution in Western society) is due to the youth of successive generations continually pulling away from their parents’ seemingly irrational adherence to religious tradition.
I personally find it shocking to think that, in 2015 with access to the internet and other Western media, Muslim youth truly want their religion to dominate their society as it has for their parents. I believe the Iranian iteration of the Arab Spring was born primarily of this exact principle: the youth of Iran, wearing their Gap tshirts and Abercrombie jeans, wanted a secularized society much more akin to a Western nation. I can only imagine having seen Western media they realize the possibilities of a secularized society. The fact that these young peoples’ dream was crushed by the strong arm of the paternal authority of Iran only goes to show how incredibly painful, and gradual, this sort of change has to be.
(With regard to your second claim)
As I basically stated above, rejection of modernity is a generational problem. I don’t know how else to convince Muslims that modernity is good other than to continually call them out for their violations of modern secular morals.
Probably the best way to address the problem is to ensure that modern Western media, such as the internet, movies, music, etc., are continually available to Muslim societies so they can witness firsthand the differences between our modern societies and the religiously traditionalist societies they live in.
This could be achieved in much the same way that the United States (and capitalism) won the Cold War. It wasn’t military might but through ideas and clear contrast that the Soviets were forced to confront the faults of their system.
If I am making an assumption here that I regard Western secular society as superior to the theocratic societies of the Middle East, then I readily acknowledge that I believe they should become “more like us.” I don’t believe in cultural relativism when I see it manifest as intolerance and oppression.
You do realize that there are Christian fundamentalists in the USA who like showing up at abortion clinics with bombs and guns, right? Also, the IRA is still around.
Calling the IRA a “Christian terrorist group” is like classifying the PKK and Al Fatah as “Muslim terrorist groups”.
Please explain either why you think they be classified as a “Muslim terrorist groups” or why you think it’s more appropriate to classify the IRA as “Christian” than it is to classify the PKK as a “Muslim terrorist group”.
Thanks in advance.
BTW, you specifically claim that the IRA justifies it’s atrocities because it’s acting “in Christ’s name”.
Could you provide some examples of this?
I certainly no patience for illegitimate criticism of Muslims or Islam but trying to put the IRA and ISIS is utterly silly.
It’s also ridiculous since the Western media is happy to draw distinctions between say Osama Bin Laden and Hamas on the one hand and the “secular” Saddam Hussein and Al Fatah on the other.
I think this is nearer to the truth.
Ha! Have you seen Western media? I can totally understand people wanting to go gangster Amish after seeing that filth.
It is apparent that you do not realize that the violent attacks against abortion clinics or providers is minuscule in number and you clearly fail to recognize that there is no connection between the IRA and any religious group.
I’ll actually cut you a little slack on the anti-abortionists, who can find some support among a few Fundamentalist Christians. Your IRA remark is just silly.
Spain has SSM (including having updated related laws such as those re. adoption and co-adoption), and while homosexual slurs are used a lot, I’d say it’s got more to do with a change in meaning than with their original linkage to sexuality. Anti-abortion is “Serious Business”? Well, if you mean that there have been such depraved behaviors as the government shutting down clinics that were performing illegal abortions, yes; there are also some kinds of abortions which keep going in and out of legality (yeehaw… not).
You seem to be several decades behind in your news from the south.
I believe that Middle Eastern societies should become more like us too. I don’t agree that increased media exposure will necessarily cause young Muslims to want to shift that way. Thomas Jefferson famously declared that the basis of our view of an ideal society is “self-evident”. Strictly speaking, it isn’t. Jefferson’s beliefs about human rights and the role of government were popular among certain people in the colonies in 1776. But looking worldwide, across all history, those beliefs plainly haven’t been self-evident to most people.
For those of us raised in the USA nearly everyone we’ve ever met has agreed in broad outline about individual rights even if disagreeing about some particular issues. Thus it’s easy to forget that the very concept of individual rights is foreign to vast parts of the world and always has been. Not everyone thinks that freedom of the press is an ideal to be pursued. Many people think it’s self-evident that there should be censorship of immoral things. Likewise not everyone feels as we do about sexual freedom, economic freedom, or religious freedom.
Spain’s abortion law is actually similar to France’s…legal up to 12 weeks in France, 14 weeks in Spain, after that, legal if physicians agree the mother’s physical or mental health is at risk or the fetus suffers from serious deformities.