I am convinced the majority of them actually don’t feel that way. But I could be wrong about that. What I am pretty darn certain about is that a lot of them do not like it. 10%, 40%, 60%, I will leave that up to you to decide. But if even 10% of them are forced into doing something they don’t like, that is 10% too much.
So you are ok with misogyny as long as it is not excessive? Because a hijab is at least mildly sexist. Any practice that separates the genders, is by definition, sexist.
We are disagreeing about degree. And, why should I listen to someone who’s purpose is to defend religion when they say they do not agree to the - degree - of a certain infraction?
You are doing a fairly good job here but you are not recognizing your own bias. I can recognize mine. Not everything I say is 100% correct. But, it can not be dismissed as easily as you would like, either.
Wrong. You have made the odious and doomed-to-failure claim that we should try to shame Muslims into abandoning their religion. You repeated the claim without ever responding to the clear point that your proposal would fail. Your behavior over several months matches the behavior of a group of people with whom I have had experience. Since you refused to actually address how your plan would work, i asked you a question regarding your plan after it failed. I proposed one possible scenario to give you the option to say, “I would do this, instead.” I did not suggest that that would be your plan, but I hoped it would prompt you to actually give some thought to your idea. You do not seem to be able to actually address the situation except to repeat your odd, doomed proposal.
So then facts are irrelevant to you. You have accused me probably at least 20 times in the past 2 months of being ignorant and uninformed but when faceed with a set of facts your response is “So What?”.
It appears that you do not care about facts at all.
It appears as if you are not able to restrain yourself from making implications that both unfounded and untrue. Could you at least - try - to restrain yourself.
It is relevant, if, it affects the freedom and quality of life of the people who live there. I’m not talking about overthrowing their government, I’m talking about their lack of respect for what we in the west consider fundamental and basic human rights and freedoms.
I don’t expect anything to change, over there, not now, not for a few decades at least. But I can make sure that when they bring their religion to Europe and the USA, it is, as you say, the moderate version and not the version in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Sure, I care about facts. The fact that the majority of people in different places approve of beliefs they share, (which is the only thing your “facts” assert), simply horrifies you because you disagree with them. In terms of this thread, it simply means that your plan of shaming them is doomed to failure. That leads to my “So what?” response.
With that many people embracing something you hate, you are not going to persuade them to change their beliefs by insulting them.
Restrain myself from what? You expressed negative reaction to the percentage of people who embrace the religion in the land where they live. That is a pretty clear case of opposing democratic action. Even if the current government in many of those places is authoritarian, in the manner of religion, at least, the people support it. Opposing that is opposing democracy.
Which you appear to want to change buy attacking their beliefs. How do you see that working?
The gap between what you tell yourself and what actually is is staggeringly wide.
My assertion is that The Koran is a dominant, oppressive force that is responsible for oppression and misery. Your assertion is, no, the Koran/Islam is a moderate religion. Almost all of those countries in that poll support Sharia Law. By majority opinion.
So now you are going to make the claim, I suppose, that Sharia Law is not oppressive and that it does not stifle personal freedom and liberty.
Well, its working pretty good against Fundamentalist Christians here in the USA.
You seem to have a need to “confront” them. Perhaps other forms of persuasion would work better.
Really? How many snake handlers do you know have switched their beliefs because they were routinely mocked? And the number of people who speak in tongues has continued to grow over the last forty years. I know of no one who has abandoned that ritual because they were mocked. Mocking is seen as a form of persecution that strengthens their faith.
How many less snake handlers are there now than there were 50 years ago? 100? So I’d say that yes, mocking is going to help. I didn’t say it would change the mind of die hard believers. Just ostracize them and therefor, their influence.
I’m well aware that you don’t like me, since you’ve given me warnings in forums that you don’t even moderate. But this is pretty weak. I’ve used exactly this languagefor monthswithoutwarning.
The West is the cultural and social inheritance of Westerners, aka White people. These are our lands, and we have a right to continue the enjoy the labors of our ancestors.
As far as Muslims in the West: well, there were the Moors, who inhabited Spain for about 700 years. Then, in an act that warms my heart, every single one was driven to the sea or killed. Next, we have the Turks, who colonized the farthest edge of Europe for about 800 years, and who currently inhabit a tiny sliver of Europe at the moment. Finally, there’s the remnants of a few Turkish colonies that were forcibly converted from Christendom, like Albania. In each case, Muslims are not “part” of the West, but rather an opposing, external force, fighting and occupying the West’s land.
For making Muslims seem childish? Well, they haven’t built much in the last few hundred years, save the lucky few who inherited petrostates thanks to Western oil drilling technology. There is, of course, a very big difference between brutally executing religious dissidents and sexual minorities and discriminating against them, a point you seem to gloss over.
This is not in accordance with reality, and is in fact magical anti-scientific polling. Non-partisan opinion pollsreveal that less than 4% of European Christians can be classified as fundamentalist, as compared to 44% of European Muslims (page 2, since you probably don’t believe me).
There is no one Sharia. Sharia is an approach to law that has several different forms. Some of them, (particularly under Wahhabist influence), are extremely oppressive, but pretending that there is one, oppressive Sharia is just wrong.
Utterly wrong. The rise, first of the Moral Majority and, later, of the Tea Party are directly tied to the increase in Fundamentalist Christianity. In the 1960s, over 60% of Americans recognized that evolution is a correct approach to biological science. Now that number is down to barely 50% (or fewer)–a fact based directly on the growth of Fundamentalist Christianity. Have they lost some court battles? Yes. However, mocking them has done nothing to reduce their numbers or change their views.
Or, perhaps, the far religious right are so vocal now, the past decade, precisely because they recognize they are on the loosing end of a cultural war that is now 50 years old.
You know, Tom, I can not honestly ever think of a single example of a Christian changing their mind, for example, about the Flood, when it is pointed out that there is not enough water on the earth to make that kind of flood.
Not once, ever, have I seen a christian change their mind about the age of the earth when plate tectonics have been explained to them.
Not
Once
So you implied assertion that I should try to reason with them strikes me as extraordinarily bizarre.
I don’t spend much time worrying about what someone decides to label “Fundamentalism.”
I pay much more attention to the actual attitudes of people about their lives and actions. As noted in this post, summarizing a number of different polls, Muslims in Europe tend to think and act the same way their neighbors do. They are already assimilating and odd claims based on the arbitrarily assigned values based on shifting definitions of skin color do not change that.
After all the whining you have done that I have attributed statements to you that you have not made, it is interesting that you accuse me of suggesting we “reason with” anyone when I have not suggested anything like that.
Well, unlike you, I actually say what I mean, so if you don’t think shaming works, and, you don’t think reason works, what then is supposed to work?
Perhaps if you defined your position as it actually was, instead of just reacting and listing a catalog of things you disagree with, people would be able to understand a little bit better where you stand on issues.
This discussion of possible avenues to undermine the political power of religion (and not just Islam - similar tactics could be adapted to other theocratic influences on government) is being unfortunately waylaid by the personal hobbies of someone who died 1400 years ago. What difference does it make?
Rhetorical question - I don’t care what difference it makes.