| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to point out that a group of religiously motivated extremists do not represent their religion as a whole.
We have a tendency not to blame all of Christianity for every act of violence at an abortion clinic, even though the perpetrators certainly derive their justification from their faith.
Why is it when something like this happens, everyone begins referring to Islam as a single thing? Whence this debate about "violent religions"? A belief system cannot be violent. It may or may not contain violent beliefs, but that has essentially zero correlation with violence carried out in its name. We've had a thousand years of religious war, and nobody's hands are clean (not even the atheists).
All it takes is a charismatic person to use faith -- even an essentially pacifist faith -- to incite people to kill. What's happening here is not unique to Islam by any means. Islam is not different or special.
The shooters here are just pawns in someone else's power game. By taking them as representative of an entire faith, you make yourself a pawn in that same game.
Also, what MEL said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MEL, with respect, if you factor in any or all of the other various killings or other human rights violations made in the name of Sharia law in nations where Islam is the state religion, it's way more than just an isolated event in Paris.
I do not agree with the "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" defense.
If a bunch of neonazis were murdered for what they said, I would see it as paramount that people didn't say "he was a neonazi, that was expected, what he said was provocative to so many people". A murdered human is a human, and should be treated as such. Further, we should not speak ill of the dead, who are no longer able to defend themselves. This is one issue. If I can guess, I would say the people killed at Charlie Hebdo today would despise being thought of as heroes. That was not their lives, not their ideas nor their goals. Even so, people being killed for saying things others do not want to hear, even knowing risks, puts into focus WHY we need freedom of speech. THAT is a fertile discussion to have. As I see it, we can either make sure this does not silence us, or we can hand over power to those willing to use the most violence to get their way. Time and time again, the West has chosen... poorly. My hope is that this time, we will do differently.
Now, should the murdered neonazi have us "attacking the jews"? Of course not, nobody claimed such, and I have no idea where you got that.
MEL, with respect, if you factor in any or all of the other various killings or other human rights violations made in the name of Sharia law in nations where Islam is the state religion, it's way more than just an isolated event in Paris.
I do not agree with the "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" defense.
I suspect it has more to do with "nations where Islam is the state religion" than with anything in the nature of Islam itself. Religions tend to be more violent when they're linked directly to political power, which isn't really that surprising.
Even religions with pacifism and sanctity of life as core tenets find ways to justify violence when they have the power and motivation to use it. Underdog, persecuted religions tend to focus more on the non-violence. Again, for obvious reasons.
Islam is at this time, for various historical and cultural reasons, more closely linked to state power than most other religions are.
Except the things codified in Sharia law come directly from the Qoran.
The idea of "convert or die" comes from the Qoran.These things maybe used to justify a tyrants behavior, but lucky for them they don't have to twist anything.
It becomes a problem once you realize that is the only thing that might get them to stop: Kill people to silence stuff you hate and you only spread the message further and more. How would you suggest we deal with fanatics who want to silence things?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you say, islam is far closer to state power in many countries than other religions today. Partly, this is because islam really doesn't make a difference between political and religious power. It is as much an ideology as a religion. Separation of church and state is a very Western concept. As a consequence of this, "political islam" is a misnomer, for it implies that islam as a whole is not political. Now, of course, there are many places where islam is nowhere near the halls of power, and in those places it can indeed be largely apolitical. And, of course, there will still be political factions of islam in those places.
As you say, islam is far closer to state power in many countries than other religions today. Partly, this is because islam really doesn't make a difference between political and religious power. It is as much an ideology as a religion. Separation of church and state is a very Western concept. As a consequence of this, "political islam" is a misnomer, for it implies that islam as a whole is not political. Now, of course, there are many places where islam is nowhere near the halls of power, and in those places it can indeed be largely apolitical. And, of course, there will still be political factions of islam in those places.
Well said.
I wonder what you think about Hitchens.
Difficult to say, because I'm utterly unfamiliar with him and his positions (outside of skimming over his wiki page just now).
I certainly never defended christian fanaticism or political aspirations. The RCC has its share of revolting crimes to answer for, for example. The idea of the separation of church and state evolved at precisely the point in time when christianity lost its stranglehold over state power - unsurprisingly.
You did not answer the question satisfactorily. Someone willing to murder a number of people over a religious issue is not going to bat an eye at being imprisoned. Put simply, it will have no deterrence value.
I agree, we should still do all those things you say. But your suggestion doesn't stop the murders.
Try again.
But there really isn't any other option is there? uphold free speech and prosecute those who would kill to prevent it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not singling it out any more than you did, thejeff. I am sure I don't need to quote you on that. My point is that we as Westerners tend to assume that religion works largely the same no matter which one you're talking about. However, here is a large difference, where this assumption becomes dangerous. Islam does not have a concept of the separation of church and state (well, possibly some parts of it might, if I remember correctly, but those are very minor entities today).
Fanaticism is no less prevalent in christianity than in islam, but the ways it expresses itself are different. Fanaticism is something that happens within a person - we are all humans, and some feel that need, while most of us do not. Which religion is not really the issue for the question of growing fanatic.
As for political aspirations, christianity has been largely hamstrung in the West by statutes that enforce separation of church and state. Even so, there are christian parties everywhere in Europe. In the US, both political parties are largely christian entities. If we were to remove those statutes, I have no illusions that the West would be one little bit different from muslim countries. We would have religious police, religious councils approving political candidates, religious schools, religious family laws, religious courts, religious censorship bodies, and so on.
Justifying things historically? Christianity and islam have been at each others' throats for about a millennium by now, with some lulls in the fighting. It's a very long tragedy, nobody's hands are clean.
Fanaticism and political aspirations are not inherent into any particular religion. They are deeply ingrained into every major religion I have encountered so far. However, with the right precautions, a secular society can function despite a large element of religion in said society.
Oh, one more thing: If you ask christian fanatics, a pretty large share of them would wholeheartedly support a ban on blasphemy.
But by singling out Islam as inherently political, you're doing just that. Or at least defining fanaticism and political aspirations as outliers in Christianity, but the norm in Islam. Which is very hard to justify historically. Even if it might be the case at this point in time. That doesn't mean it's inherent in the nature of either religion.
I'm curious what exactly you mean by this? Christianity began among the politically marginalized and faced Imperial sanction and suppression up until 311CE and was legalized in 313CE. It took centuries before it had political power and became the Roman state religion in 380CE.
Islam on the other hand (assuming here for the moment the historicity of largely 9th century sources discussing 7th century events) began with the spread of faith by violence and then empire building in the vacuum of collapsing Byzantine and Sassanian power in late antiquity. Among the earliest titles for the Caliph was 'commander of the faithful' with no real difference there between religious authority and secular/military power.
That's a very distinct difference between the two religions.
I don't really care. It's not like twisting religion and finding excuses for atrocities has ever been difficult in any religion. Convert or Die and all sorts of messed up religion based law have been common in Christianity as well.
There's plenty of religious law in the Torah. Much of it abhorrent to me in some interpretations.
With the proper interpretations of course, there's nothing particularly wrong with Sharia, either.
This is true. Deutoronomy and Leviticus both have some horrible laws in them.
It's a can vs. should situation.I suppose a Jew could claim he has God's mandate to stone his disobedient children, which is clearly in the bible. For some reason though, Christians and Jews choose not to do this thing, and I don't believe it's ever come up in modern history.
The Qoran has laws that say you must stone your daughter if, well, any number of reasons make this response acceptable. Instead of going with should I do this thing, they rest on I can do this thing, and act on it. AND it's happened in very recent modern history.
Why is this choice made by one group, and not the others?
The Crusades happened hundreds of years ago. The slaughter in France happened this week.I certainly never defended christian fanaticism or political aspirations. The RCC has its share of revolting crimes to answer for, for example.But by singling out Islam as inherently political, you're doing just that. Or at least defining fanaticism and political aspirations as outliers in Christianity, but the norm in Islam. Which is very hard to justify historically. Even if it might be the case at this point in time. That doesn't mean it's inherent in the nature of either religion.
however, it had a major influence on the world we live in today.
But there really isn't any other option is there? uphold free speech and prosecute those who would kill to prevent it.You did not answer the question satisfactorily. Someone willing to murder a number of people over a religious issue is not going to bat an eye at being imprisoned. Put simply, it will have no deterrence value.
I agree, we should still do all those things you say. But your suggestion doesn't stop the murders.
Try again.
You are not going to have free speech if people are too afraid of being killed to speak their minds. So, if you want to keep free speech, what more than prosecution of the criminals should be done?
Muslims can and do live in secular societies, in Europa for instance. As long as political power and religions are kept as separate as possible, all is fine : revealed truth doesn't mesh well with consensus, debate and respect of opponents.
Adding years to crimes who already entail a life sentence doesn't make a lot of sense...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What an absolute tragedy over there. I may not have agreed with what the paper was satiring, but loss of life for drawing cartoons is a sad commentary on the world in general. I mean, it seems that between this and the craziness that went on with The Interview movie, there are alot of entities out there trying to push their will onto freedoms (like free speech)that should be available to everyone without fear of death or terrorist acts, but sadly aren't.
And it's a good thing France has such harsh gun control laws, so no one can just get a Kalashnikov and start shooting.......oh wait....
The guy filming from his apartment had a perfect view. Now if he only actually was able and had a rifle instead of a cameraphone, there'd be 3 less Radical dirtbags on this planet, and 1 more shot but alive police officer, plus who knows how many civilians. Tragic.
I hope that the families of all the slain are brought peace in time, and are hopefully taken care of so they don't have yet another thing like financial burdens to deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Crusades happened hundreds of years ago. The slaughter in France happened this week.
These things are much more related than most people realize. It's the same global conflict that's been raging in various forms for over a thousand years now.
Anyway, my comments upthread should in no way be construed as apology for the actions of extremists.
By taking an entire religion at fault, you lump them together with non-extremists who would otherwise have been on your side. In doing so, you provide more political fodder for extremists on all sides... but ESPECIALLY the ones you are most opposed to.
The goal of most terrorist acts is to create a response, after all. 9/11 was particularly effective at engaging the US in a protracted conflict -- which was its stated goal.
If we favor nuance, however! If we attack extremism and embrace rational, constructive members of all faiths, then we can hope to make progress.
Demonizing the entire faith of Islam can only lead to more of this nonsense, not less of it. And we should all want less.
And blasphemy also pushes the moderates toward extremism, so we should stop doing that, I suppose?