The Chinese government does some pretty gnarly stuff to Falun Gong believers and Tibetan monks. Is China fundamentally incompatible with “civilization?” Does this also continue to Chinese-Thais, Taiwanese-Americans, and anyone who might have some aspects in common with Chinese culture? I mean, I know not every Chinese culture is exactly the same, but surely what goes on in China shows a general tendency, right?
Last imprisonment was in the 1920s. In living memory as it were.
If they do, I’m not hearin’ it.
I haven’t said anything about Christianity or “white people”. And I don’t think there is any question that a society that doesn’t whip girls because they got raped or forces its women to cover themselves head to toe in public is morally superior to one that does.
I didn’t say I was an expert on what liberals say and don’t say. But I am congnizant of like anyone else. I’m certainly as cognizant of it as anyone around here is about what conservatives say and don’t say.
Like I said to Der Trihs, I’m not hearing it. What I’m hearing from liberals is that in the case of terrorist attacks or assasinations that it’s the individuals committing the crimes who are to blame, and what I’m hearing about whippings and stonings and honor killings and forced marriages is that we have no right to impose our beliefs on another culture.
And why is that? Do women in Islamic countries suffer less when whipped than American women? Do they die less painfully when stoned? Anyone outraged by the status of women in pre-sixties America should be absolutely livid about what happens to women in Islamic countries and how they have to live.
It certainly isn’t just a religion. Islam forms armies and courts and governments, and people unfortunate enough to have been born within within one of the countries where Islam is in charge has to live under its customs and laws or be subjected to torturous punishments and death. I’m unaware of any large, western Christian societies, cultures or countries where this is the case. In many Islamic countries, religion, culture and government have become one.
I can’t believe you actually said it! Did responsibility for racism or the lynching of black people in the old days lie solely with the people who engaged in it or did it? Does responsibility for opponents of gay rights within Christianity lie solely with the people who oppose it?
There lies within the Islamic faith and Islamic governments a certain punitiveness and inflexibility and willingness to kill over beliefs that does not exist to any significant degree anywhere else. Until Islam itself begins to change and become more accepting of other beliefs and less punitive regarding its own, none of this will get any better. It accomplishes nothing to focus on individual miscreants while ignoring the environment that created them.
I would contend that ignoring the culture and belief system that gives rise to these types of people will accomplish nothing, just as focusing on the shooters of MLK and Medgar Evers while doing absolutely nothing to change the environment and belief system that gave birth to them would have accomplished nothing with regard to ending racism.
You might want to ask a cartoonist who criticized Islam if you can get one to come out of hiding.
As for the thread, it’s just another “Allah Ackbar murder of the week” and it’s impolite to talk about it.
From its separation from India until an Islamist militant overthrew its elected government and imposed a number extreme laws, Pakistan–which owes its existencde to the fact that it is a majority Muslim nation–had no blasphemy laws. The laws were imposed by members of the radical extreme who took power forcibly.
Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the U.S. put a lot of carrot-and-stick pressure on the Pakistan government to permit the U.S. to supply its Afghanistan operation through Pakistan. Part of the “stick” was telling the Pakistan government, army, and security forces that they had to give up their Islamist orientation. To date, the U.S. has had rather mixed success with that approach, although the situation in 2011 is much better than it was in 2001. The fact that Muslim politicians, as well as a Christian politician, openly call for the repeal of the blasphemy laws indicates that times have changed; in 2001, they would have all been imprisoned or executed for saying the same thing. Now, the murders are carried out by extremists who have been marginalized by the majority of the Muslim population.
The answer to your question is that the problem is one arising from an extremist group, not a problem inherent in a religion that encompasses dozens of separate groups, some violent and some not.
The very liberal Aaron Sorkin, using one of his very liberal characters, on his very liberal TV show, The West Wing, on Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women.
That’s one clip (and not actually the one that I was looking for) from a very high profile, left wing source, that’s clearly outraged a the treatment of women in under Islamic theocracies. It took me all of four minutes to find.
Can you find a similarly high profile liberal source for your supposed “We have no rights to impose our beliefs” quote? I won’t even complain if it takes you longer than four minutes to find one.
I’m reminded that after the bombing of Coptic church in Egypt, thousands of Muslims came out and surrounded the church during the Coptic’s Xmas services and served as human shields. They risked their lives so that others could worship in peace. They made it clear that they’d had enough of these comic book ass-hat theologians with their evil, self-centered, selfish opinions which justified see other people as sub-human, whose opinions are not worthy to listen to.
I guess life’s more complex then we wish it could be, eh Magellen01 and Starving Artist? But that’s why we learn to grow and rise above our petty, pointless, and bigoted viewpoints. Because we have thirst for knowledge and truth, even when it interferes with our preconceived and misguided notions & beliefs!
No one has said anything of the sort in this thread. Whether the West should impose its views on another culture is also a separate question of whether or not we’re in a position to judge. I have no problem with saying that blasphemy laws and religious courts are terrible and the stoning of women is barbaric.
Because Americans have little ability to affect what happens in Islamic countries. The U.S. has no diplomatic relations with Iran, for example, so protesting does nothing and there aren’t any goods to boycott. I guess I could refuse to see movies with Shoreh Agdashloo in them. You’ll find no shortage of liberals who want the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy so it can stop funding repressive Islamic dictatorship and monarchies through oil revenue, that’s for sure.
That’s exactly what it is.
Which was equally true of Christian countries earlier in history. There’s nothing unique about Islam as far as that goes.
I think we might actually be able to get at the question here: the responsibility for lychings rests on the people who did it (a fairly small number) and the people who allowed it to happen (a much larger number). Why did people commit lynchings and allow them to happen? One reason is that it was acceptable, or at least justifiable, in their culture. The lives of blacks didn’t count for much, and when they crossed lines in society, some whites considered it acceptable to murder them to keep blacks in their rightful position in society.
From there, maybe we can address these murders: while I’m not well acquainted with the workings of Pakistani society, this was not a tolerated lynching. It was a murder intended not to intimidate a minority, but to intimidate anyone who would speak out against blasphemy laws. You can make a case for blaming the culture when the majority tolerates murders. I’m not sure this qualifies because I don’t think the culture tolerates these murders. I think Al Qaeda and the Taliban are anti-government radicals trying to establish a fanatical religious government in Pakistan. They’re been fighting against the government in Pakistan for the last decade. That’s the distinction I’m drawing.
Of course. I don’t hold Christianity responsible as a whole (despite what the Bible can be understood to say) because I know a lot of Christians who have the good sense to ignore the stuff that arguably condemn gays. Nor do I confuse Christianity, which is a religion, with a culture.
I don’t think you can blame that entirely on Islam when a lot of other factors (culture and economics to name the most obvious) are involved. Yes, a great many Muslims think their religion should be above criticism. They’re wrong and I think they’ll learn. I don’t think that makes them collectively responsible for shootings perpetrated by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Do you think Pakistanis actually wants this? Because if you do, you’ll have to explain why they elected Benazir Bhutto’s widower president.
I’m not talking about individual liberals, Miller. I’m asking why liberals as a whole aren’t rising up and agitating against the way Islam treats women (and homosexuals, for that matter), and against the oppressive and punitive way it imposes its ideas of morality on its own citizens in the same way liberals did with regard to societal practices of the fifties and early sixties. Back then a person didn’t have to go looking for some high-profile liberal who might be speaking out about these issues, they were everywhere. No matter where you turned - books, magazines, movies, television shows, political rallies and day-to-day conversation around the water cooler - liberals were making it known that racism and sexism had to go. (For the record, I agreed. My disagreements were largely in regard to how to go about it.)
And yet the ills suffered by black people and women in pre-1969 era America pale to insignificance when compared to the ills that people in Islamic countries are subjected to every day. So my question is, why the conciliatory attitude on the part of American liberals in general toward Islam? Liberalism and Islam could not be further apart, and as we’ve seen over the last forty years or so the left is not at all shy about condemning practices or beliefs it finds objectionable, so where is the constant drumbeat for change and moral relativism that we’ve seen coming out of the left here in the U.S. for the last forty years?
They are; you just don’t want to admit it because it doesn’t fit your “liberals are evil” agenda.
Mostly because you are making most of this up. “Islam” does not treat women poorly. Various groups within Islam do treat women poorly.
When you make the sweeping claim that “Islam” treats women poorly, you are lumping together all the different peoples who live in Muslim countries and pretending that they all march in lockstep oppressing people. That is the sort of thing that some would say about “Conservatives” with just about as much accuracy. Of course, since you are also willing, even eager, to make those sort of ludicrous claims against “Liberals,” I suppose we should simply consider the source and move on.
I agree with the OP - the sooner religion fades away, the better.
I should have known better than to even try.
What on earth made you think I was talking only about things said in this thread?
We’re certainly in a position to judge. And while we may not be in a position to impose our views upon these countries, we can certainly stop making excuses for what goes on within them.
So far, so good. Now, to what do you attribute the fact that those things exist almost exclusively within Muslim countries?
If it was of a mind to, America could agitate economically and politically for societal change and respect for human rights in these countries. We’ve done it with China and had at least some positive effect.
No it isn’t, and for the reasons I said.
Damn, you’re going to trot that out too, huh? My answer is, “So what?” Christian countries stopped acting like that centuries ago and Islamic countries haven’t. So they’re certainly unique in that regard.
Exactly. Societal mores were held to be responsible for creating and allowing the abuses that occurred then, and it been argued by the left both then and now that society had to be changed in order to end those abuses.
Fair enough. But the point remains that the killing was carried out by a Muslim extremist. My point is that there are far too many Muslim extremists and that it’s the punitive, restrictive and unyielding nature of Islam itself that creates them.
Permit me to post a couple of definitions of “culture”. This from M-W Online:
d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic.
By either of these definitions, life in Islamic countries is a culture.
If this was an isolated incident you’d have a point. But every day it seems we get a new version of this radical incident or that radical incident or some other radical incident, and the thing they have in common is that they are all motivated by something within the teachings of Islam.
Of course they don’t want it. We didn’t want 9/11 either.
I don’t think liberals are evil and I never have. Assigning evil intent to one’s opponents evil is primarily a liberal thing.
Alright then, take a look at this poll by the Pew Research Center and you’ll see large support for Islamic dominance and punishments in many islamic countries. Of particular note is the chart on page 14, which shows widespread support for stonings and whippings and the death penalty for apostasy ranging up to 82% in favor, with the populations of five of the seven countries listed - Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan - posting numbers ranging from 42% to 82% in favor of these punishments. And then on page 18 you’ll see that the populations of five out of the seven countries listed show support of suicide bombings of civilians ranging from 15% in Indonesia to 46% among the Shias in Lebanon (the Sunni were 33%).
So you can hardly say that these types of atrocities are attributable only to a few “extremists”, or that these attitudes are typical only of small groups scattered here and there, when large segments of entire COUNTRIES support this stuff.
Funny, this board virtually reeks of broad brush condemnations of conservatives, Tea Partiers, Republicans and Christians, and it has ever since I joined this board eight years ago. And yet I have only the most scant (read: nonexistent) recollection of you challenging the accuracy of those statements.
P.S. - Is it okay to say things like “consider the source” in this forum? I’m asking because you as a mod should be able to give a definitive answer.
And on preview:
To try what, Miller? Moving the goalposts? I asked a question about why the country’s liberals aren’t up in arms over human rights abuses in Islamic countries, you posted a cite showing one guy condemned it, and that’s supposed to invalidate the question? And then you tried to shift the focus to comments made by “high-profile” people. What’s that about? You were clearly trying to redefine the terms so as to put me at a disadvantage. Not very sporting of you, old boy.
And as far as who’s been saying “we have no right to impose our beliefs”, I’ve seen it numerous times on this very board. But I think you knew that, thus your insistence on someone high profle to have said it.
Maybe “liberals” should do more to condemn the outrages that routinely erupt in Islamic societies.
But Starving Artist, if you object to the anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. prevalent in Islamic societies, doesn’t that make you a “liberal” on some level?
I think there is point to be made in that conservatives are so disagreeable that some people can’t help but disagree with them all the time in knee-jerk fashion. There is a strong tendency for “liberals” to defend minorities and foreigners, and yet the culture of some of these protected groups is extremely conservative.
Tis a paradox. Do we make as big a deal over the extreme evil practiced half a world away as we do over the moderate evil prevailing in our country representing our culture and our religion and is therefore more our business?
Thank you.
Yes, it does. And so are many other conservatives. In my opinion most conservatives have always been in favor of equal rights, equal pay and so forth. Look at how well minorities and women have done in Republican politics. Under Bush we had two black Secretaries of State, including one who was a female, and a Hispanic Attorney General. We have a black conservative on the Supreme Court and until recently a black man was head of the Republican party. We ran a female for vice-president (not too advisedly, I admit) and the country is rife with conservative female Congress members and governors. The idea that conservatives don’t like women and blacks is a liberal deceit, and one that many people have fallen for.
Conservatives only seem disagreeable because you have bought in to their portrayal by liberals (which of course includes the news and entertainment media). For example, where you see evil, selfish assholes who oppose government health care cause they already got their own and don’t care about you, the reality is that many of them struggle to pay for their health care (if they even have any) just like you and what really motivates them is the fear of government control over their lives and the belief that people live happier lives when they’re free to call their own shots in life. You may disagree with that premise, and I’m sure you do, but the fact is that conservatives in truth have different and perfectly legitimate views as to the role of government in our lives and which way of life results in the happiest and best kind of life.
Yes. Human lives and human suffering are just as important half a world away as they are here. People are people, and they feel the lash of a whip just as badly in the Middle East as people do here.
And you heard that from a conservative.
:rolleyes: You despise liberals so much that you follow up the claim that you don’t think they are evil with a slam at them literally in the next sentence. Suuuuure you don’t think they are evil.
We should concentrate first on the evil at home for the practical reason we can do far more about it. Not that it isn’t worth trying to do both at the same time, but the fact is despite American fantasies of omnipotence our ability to dictate what people in other countries do is limited at best.
There is much about the liberal mindset that I don’t like and am critical of. But that isn’t the same thing as thinking liberals are evil. “Evil” implies malicious intent, and I don’t think and have never thought that liberals act out of malicious intent (apart from their portrayal of conservatives, that is).
That’s no reason not to do whatever we can to alleiviate pain and suffering abroad. We don’t blow off aid to typhoon and hurricane victims because we have enough to deal with here, so I don’t see why we should blow off torture and repression elsewhere. Besides, with the fall of racism we don’t have that much evil here to contend with now anyway. All this talk about conservative evil is just you guys trying to get people whipped up so they’ll vote the way you want.
America, especially in cooperation with other countries, could do a great deal to bring economic and political pressure to bear upon the countries of the Middle East to improve human rights there. It’s just that nobody’s all het up about it like they are about gay rights and health care. Besides, there’s plenty of outrage to go around and I would think this issue would be one that both sides could agree on and get behind if we could get away from this notion that criticism of Islam equals racism.
This would be really funny except that you actually believe that tripe.
Sure I can. I note, first off, that the polls were conducted in only seven countries out of the several dozen Muslim majority countries in the world and that of those seven, all but one has a recent history of social disruption that has been capitalized upon by Islamist extremists. I can note that people being polled are liable to give lip service to a lot of things that they don’t actually actively support. I can note that while polls indicate that people will approve or disapprove many things in the hypothetical, that very few of them have actually supported those same actions enough to make them parts of their nations’ laws and that the people who actually carry out such actions remains tiny. I will again note that all your terrible numbers are not taken from all Muslims, but from large numbers of Muslims in particular countries that have their own cultures in which Islam is hardly the single factor affecting those cultures. It would be interesting, for example, to discover just how different the views of Christians in Lebanon or Nigeria are from their Muslim neighbors–two countries in which there have actually been massacres of Muslims by Christians.
If you have no recollection of me condemning broad-brush negative characterizations of people on the political Right, it simply means that you are pretty careful to ignore any statement that fails to conform to your prejudices.
Why would it not be OK to say"consider the source" in the context of evaluating the accuracy of an unsupported claim?
76% in Pakistan favour death for apostasy and the place has a law mandating death for blasphemy, the proposed repeal of which was howled down by mass outrage.
There is no room for here for the usual ‘few bad eggs’ hand-waving apologetics.
And, oh look. Supreme Court rejects petition and says punishments less than death that are in the penal code are un-islamic
This is a whole basket.
Deal with it.
Cue the ‘no True Scotsman’ arguments in 3, 2, 1