LOL. Germans didn’t just wake up one day, go crazy, and suddenly decide to start the Holocaust without rhyme or reason. Jews had been violently encroaching on Germany for centuries before the Holocaust.
I actually already addressed this point.
The people in Indonesia who have been radicalized are the ones who already suffered persecution for being Muslim.
As to Female “mutilation” as an aspect of Indonesian or Malaysian culture it has traditionally involved a slight nick to the genitals, (which is, indeed, an ancient Islamic practice. Note, however, that as practiced in Indonesia, (following actual hadiths dating back at least as far as the eighth century): The amount of flesh removed, if any, was alternately described by circumcisers as being the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle. This is less destructive than and less painful than a standard male circumcision and is not the clitorectomy or infibulation that most people presume is meant by FGM. To the extent that anyone in Indonesia has taken the matter further, they are part of the radicalized groups created by the anti-Muslim actions of the government. Frankly, anyone making a claim about “Muslim FGM” who includes Indonesia who has not been equally vocal protesting routine male circumcision in the West is a hypocrite.
Persecution is the surest way to radicalize a group and encourage fundamentalism. The most conservative Catholics in the world are the Poles who perceived themselves persecuted by both Atheist Soviets and Orthodox Russians. As you note, Europe has a more homogeneous society than the U.S. and to the extent that Muslim immigrants have perceived persecution that radicalization has occurred. (This is not always due to actual persecution; it may be the result of immigration from even more conservative nations encountering the “strange” openness of European society.) Nevertheless, and despite specific radicalized individuals or small groups, the Muslim population as a whole has embraced European plurality.
BTW, the Crusades were not equivalent to the Holocaust, but citing various previous conflicts as a cause for the Crusades is as unreasonable as citing Jewish betrayals/links to Bolshevism/links to finance as a cause of the Holocaust.
This is just silly.
The only “encroachment” on Europe prior to the Crusades was the invasion of Iberia, in which the local peoples of North Africa returned the favor that the European Vandals, (having already invaded Iberia from Northern Europe), had inflicted on them three hundred years earlier.
The Crusades were called when the Eastern Roman Empire, (already in decline), called on Western Europe, (despite having a rather oppositional relationship with the West), for support to battle Muslims in Asia Minor using the pretext of religion to make their case.
I probably come down somewhere in the middle. I find some aspects of Islam a bit offputting and find their treatment of women to be quite outdated, for example. Some people quote snippets of the Koran out of context and offer it as “proof” of the evils of Islam, but I don’t think these people are qualified to give a correct interpretation of how these passages should apply to life. I don’t expect Muslims to follow every word of the Koran any more than I expect all Christians to obey all the odd restrictions in Deuteronomy. So the bottom line is I don’t think that Islam is the most enlightened of faiths, but to blame it for the violent acts committed by some in its name is unfair.
I think the problem really is that the regions in which the extremists flourish are where there is little else to do, unemployment is prevalent and opportunities are few. I think we see more of it in nations that are less well governed than we do in others. All in all, I’d rather be a Muslim in Turkey or Qatar than in Iraq, Syria, or Somalia. When you don’t have a job and there are weapons readily available, the natural thing to do is pick up a weapon.
It’s best not to think of the thugs as Muslim extremists any more than it was to think of Hitler as a Christian extremist. They’re criminals first and foremost.
This seems like mainly ISIS-related paranoia. The media has made them the current exemplar of Islam.
The thing is, if I were a budding warlord in America, and I decided I wanted to carve out an independent state in the midwest somewhere, I’d need the support of the locals. Wouldn’t I appeal to their Christianity with some Old Testament fire and brimstone rhetoric? In other words, ISIS may in fact be run by true zealots and supported by true believers, but I see their religious appeals as primarily political.
Notice what you wrote above, “Extremist Islamic beliefs”. So, they are both extreme and Islamic. As I mentioned in another post, ignoring the Islamic component of these murderous barbarians is akin to trying to fight the violence in places like LA while refusing to acknowledge the role that gang membership plays in that violence. I’d love to hear your response to that point.
You’re attempt to draw a parallel between extreme Islam and extreme Christianity is ridiculous. as has been pointed out, how many abortion doctors have been killed by Christians? Or how many Christians have killed abortion doctors? Feel free to control for the respective number of Muslim and Christian adherents. Then please point me to any evidence that shows the percent of Christians who support the murder of abortion doctors. Then we can compare that to the findings of the Pew poll that shows that percent of Muslims who support the killing of infidels, the stoning of adulterers, the murder of homosexuals and the mutilation of young girls.
I’ll wait.
To me, what you are saying is that there’s a connection between violence in Los Angeles and wearing the color red.
I’d say there’s a way more obvious correlation between extremism and what side of the equator you are on, than what kind of religion you profess. If anything, a literal interpretation of Christianity would be more bonkers than any other modern religion.
Helping the patriarch of Constantinople was what I’d call the “outlet” of the Crusades, but the more fundamental reason behind the First was that the Latins had been getting nigh-suicidal in their infighting and internecine warfare for a while, leading to famines and epidemics, mass slaughters, plundered monasteries… This despite numerous appeals to peace and moderation on the part of the clergy.
In the end the Pope figured that since these assholes were evidently always going to behave like jackholes, they might as well be fighting over there than down here.
(And then the Latins fucked Constantinople themselves for good measure. Possibly to show up the Muslims who’d failed to do so a couple centuries earlier :D)
Beyond that, agreed, calling the Crusades “retribution for the Umayyad invasion” is about as on point as calling the '39 invasion of France by Zee Germans “vengeance for Austerlitz !”. You don’t get to avenge anything three hundred years and 30 generations later.
Suppose we grant the conclusion of people like Maher that for one reason or another Muslims are more likely than adherents to other faiths to adopt extremist or violent attitudes because of something to do with the content of Islamic teachings.
So what? What are we being asked to do with that information?
Make a serious effort to support and encourage reformers.
How so? Support for reformers would be a good idea (if it were) whether or not the proportion needing reform were 5% or 50%, and whether or not their reading of Islam were “correct” or not, right?
I don’t see what this debate has to do with the merits of supporting reformers.
My head is spinning. I’ve been wondering where I stand since I saw the video clip a few days ago. Maher and Harris won me over when they first started arguing. The more they argued, the more I could see Affleck’s point.
Skimming through this thread has helped me realize Affleck’s stance a bit more, and I think Maher and especially Harris were more “prepared” for the debate.
I have actually wondered what people on the SDMB thought of Harris before this happened.
To make this claim reasonable, you would have to provide evidence that Hitler (and/or his chief lieutenants) justified their policies and actions with explicit references to Jesus and Christianity, at the same or similar frequency with which Muslim extremists justify their policies and actions with reference to Islam.
There are a few things often forgotten in this kind of discussion.
-
From a secular (let alone atheist) perspective, religious violence is so awful because it’s completely pointless. At least secular violence is usually about a genuine issue. Something is accomplished depending on the victor. See the Communists and Jacobins, which religious types always love to bring up.
-
Christians are apparently the most warlike demographic in the US.
-
Christians in Africa and the Caribbean (holding to the religion of the slavers, incidentally) are at this moment engaged in violent repression of the LGBT demographic, entirely for religious reasons.
-
Have you ever heard of the Taiping Rebellion?
-
There is indeed an infuriating reluctance among many otherwise progressive people to accurately label and oppose the retrograde attributes of today’s Islam. That has a breaking point; feminists and LGBT and their allies are often on alert regarding reactionary Muslims in Europe. It’s not only the stance of right-wing chauvinists.
-
Religion is not race. It’s a choice. It’s fair game.
Yes,. but so what? If you appealed to their Christianity with fire and brimstone, you would not succeed. Because even the most fanatic fundie Christians don’t believe in beheading everybody who dares to ,say, draw a cartoon of their prophet.There aren’t enough “locals” to support you.
Isis is succeeding because a HUGE number of Muslims support their idea of re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate, and using violence to achieve that goal.
And Bill Maher is right to say so out loud.
The people who wrote the American Constitution were in no sense “Christian leaders.” Many of them were in no sense Christian at all.
Yeah, there were lots of deists and such.
How do you criticize Islamic extremists without pointing out that they are Islamic?
I think this is the question Maher and Harris wanted to ask Affleck. Of course, Affleck was too busy calling them racists and bigots to offer a reply.
You don’t think I could get conservative American Christians to support me in going after hostile government officials and various undesirables?
I don’t understand why the beheadings in particular rile people up so much. I don’t see them as any more outrageous than dragging captured Shia men to a trench and shooting them. Both are pretty horrible, but understandable in the context of a war.