Of course, OP is taking everything out of context and blaming Islam, you can see many things he lists occurring in countries that aren't even majority Muslim and of course, countries are affected by more than just their religious persuasion. Interpretations of Islam are different in different places and for different people but this "othering" concept is still stupid. Everyone is an "other", I am sure a better way of thinking and a better term to describe a similar problem is more appropriate.

It's a piece of rhetoric that ought leave one cold. As if there ought not be a political reaction to a tragedy such as a mass shooting. — Banno

I'm completely in favour of the banning of assault rifles, wasn't aware that NZ even allowed them to be owned legally lol. I am not saying every reaction which requires political change is utilising the tragedy politically. I think that gun control is a bit of an unfortunate example because we don't need to see them killing people to know that they are going to be used for that. The AR is completely absurd because of its destructive power and how out of place it would be for defending a home with an AR or having a hobby of shooting things with an AR. Nonetheless, we've got a clear connection.

Trying to say the political leader of a country is culpable for mass murder and using the kinds of arguments that StreetlightX and you employed (ot lack of arguments for you) crosses a line. The interpretations you guys are utilising to blame the Australian PM and Australian culture are pathological as far as I am concerned. I put it on the same level as saying Australia has a rape culture. You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath.

Pathological to the extreme, taking things to mean what you want them to mean in order to make the arguments you wanted to make. Gun control has a serious and obvious causal relationship with mass shootings while the PM using anti-Islamic sentiment for votes, "dog whistling" and whatever else cannot be now described as "mass murder causing behaviour" because one guy who may or may not have ever given a shit about anything the PM did or said, murdered the same group of people that the PM has utilised for political purposes or "attacked".

Now if you had said that people ought be judged for what they do, we might find agreement. — Banno

This is a philosophy forum, I judge people on what they believe all the time and I don't see a problem with it. If someone told you they hate homosexuals and they think it's disgusting and immoral would you brush that off as nothing? Would it matter if they were Muslim and based their views on their interpretation of Islam or an atheist who hated homosexuals for some other reason? I imagine not and at least for me, certainly, it doesn't matter.

There was a thread on this, No?

What is it? — Banno

That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means. That meaning is used as evidence in arguments.

To even begin to compare the West to Islam, how do we evaluate them? For Streetlight X, the West has caused a lot of problems historically for the middle east with their imperialism and so, we cannot say the West has moral superiority. The West doesn't just have problems historically and it has way more than just that, it has problems now and you can take any one or many of those things in isolation and say "this means the West isn't morally superior to Islam". You can also take the goods things about the West and say "this means the West is morally superior" and vice versa for Islam.

Of course, none of these perspectives are balanced, they're ignoring mountains of facts and interpretations to arrive at an answer. It's something that you and Streetlight X do constantly and continually arrive at similar conclusions which are detrimental to Western countries and culture (so far this hasn't been to the benefit of Islam but that's irrelevant) while OP does the same for Islam. The result can only be described as a pathological way of looking at the world.

Yep. As Judaka mentioned earlier, the OP is boring and meaningless. No one supported it including the opening poster.

What was interesting was the parade of hypocrisy it elicited. I told Judaka that the robotic character of it indicates the folks who do it don't realize they're doing it. It's all reflexive. Unconscious. Beast-like.

You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath. — Judaka

This puts rather an extreme strain on what was actually said; which was that making anti-islamic police and rhetoric part of the realpolitik will inevitably lead to violence.

Nor does pointing out misogynist culture in Australia imply that one thinks all Australian males are rapists.

I explicitly rejected the pissing competition even as it began.

My first post pointed out that Islam is not monolith, and predicted the inevitable posts from Christians who assume their own moral superiority.

That is the opinion you, and perhaps under you influence @frank, attribute to me is quite wrong.

Perhaps we can agree that there is a fundamental error in the OP in assuming that there are such things as Christian or Islamic morality, that they might be compared.

Seems to me you are reading too much into what has been said. You want to see liberals defending Islam, so that is what you do see.

To my eye that is no more than yet another pissing competition. The philosophical significance of the OP is that it assumes that western and islamic morality are some sort of thing that can be directly compared. The social significance is the wider acceptance of such a myth.

The Christchurch terrorist's manifesto, blather as it was, was not dissimilar to the OP, as was the rot espoused by Anning.

I think Arendt shows a way to understand the human stupidity going on here, including the complicity of mainstream Australian politics.

This post you're proud of does exactly what I said it does, illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons.

Othering.

They are not us. We don't do this shit.

That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here.

The Christchurch terrorist was one of us. He was born in a town a few tens of kilometres away from my home town. He experiences the same sorts of things as we experienced. He chose to act based on those experiences. And what he did was appalling.

If we deny that he was Australian. we lose an opportunity to address the issues that caused him to make his choice. — Banno

Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is. And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities, immigrants, and the poor, and all the rest of it. Why is it so horrifying for you that this might be the case? — StreetlightX

The shooter is an Australian, what you interpret that to mean is without evidence, unreasonable nonsense. You look to find blame in his Australianness for the crime, you look for fault in the mainstream culture. Is there a case to be made? Probably not but I haven't seen one if it does exist. It doesn't matter for you that everyday Australians find murder abhorrent or the murder abhorrent. Just like StreetlightX who I think is actually worse than you, which is an unexpected twist.

Don't compare a prejudice against women to rape, one might also again bring into question this inherent claim of these things being solely nurtured, given that misogynist views exist worldwide without exception. Do you agree with StreetlightX that Australia has a rape culture?

I explicitly rejected the pissing competition even as it began. — Banno

No, you joined in. You started arguing with OP about how Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion, you started your own little "pissing contest" on the side. I am surprised you are even saying now that you wish to come to an agreement that there's no such thing as Christian morality, given it makes no sense with what you've said earlier in this thread.

This is the thing with talking to people about the past, you've got your own perspective about what you've written and you've perhaps got an understanding of yourself as a certain type of person. This is a bit more of a comical example because I can actually show that you're on the wrong side of this. I'm happy for you to start taking your comments back, I want you to do that in fact.

Ah yes, the old "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" excuse; coupled, no less, with the vapid "I don't look because I don't do politics anyway". Outhouse thinking for outhouse thinkers.

The philosophical significance of the OP is that it assumes that western and islamic morality are some sort of thing that can be directly compared. — Banno

Christians first identified Islam as evil about 1000 years ago. It was mostly fear of the unknown, which is a primal thing.

Isn't there an interfaith movement in Australia?

Yes, there is. What does the say about Islam or Christianity being monolithic?

I've got a long post to finish, but I'll just point this out now: by the measure being applied to Muslims in these sorts of threads, Christianity, or rather Christian cultures, have been morally bankrupt all over the place. Many of them in ways similar to instances of Islamic cultures people criticise (e.g. gay rights, women, etc. ).

illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons. — Judaka

Argument by label.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion here?

Do you think that what the terrorist was exposed to as an Australian had nothing to do with his actions? of course not.

So perhaps we might pursue the question of how much Australian culture has responsibility for producing a terrorist?

Christianity, or rather Christian cultures — TheWillowOfDarkness

Neat. Might adopt that.

What does the say about Islam or Christianity being monolithic? — Banno

The fact that Christian clergymen identified Islam as Antichrist 1000 years ago indicates that there is a long tradition of judging Islam wholesale. You can't claim that it doesn't make sense to do so. In fact, that sort of thing can make plenty of sense:

Assyrian culture was unusually brutal.

Am I saying that every single Assyrian was brutal? No, I'm highlighting the way culture influences individual actions.

But mostly, I was telling you that when people blow up Muslims or World Trade Centers or whatever, it's not the result of a logical flaw. It's because of fear and anger (of the type your foaming at the mouth pet dog has).

The fact that Christian clergymen identified Islam as Antichrist 1000 years ago indicates that there is a long tradition of judging Islam wholesale. You can't claim that it doesn't make sense to do so. In fact, that sort of thing can make plenty of sense: — frank

Sure, one can so do. But the question remains, is it correct to do so?

Refer to my previous post. The question then becomes, to what extent can Islam be considered an individual, that we might judge it's morality?

The OP fails on this account.

But that does not make such a discussion impossible. For example,, I find the notion of submission moral repugnant. The notion is that one must bow to the will of god, regardless of its morality.

Logically the one who has moral culpability for what is done is the individual who is doing the doing - the actor. Abraham is willing to sacrifice Issac as an act of submission. But it is Abraham, not god, who is the actor. He, not God, bears the blame. Abraham ought have spared his son from binding.

Now because of the role of submission in Islam, that's a line of discussion that might be worthwhile. Doubtless there are those who might explain to me why Abraham ought submit.

But such a discussion is a ling way from the bigoted diatribe of the OP.

The OP fails on this account. — Banno

OK. But it appears the OP's first language is Russian, so maybe it was a translation problem.

Now because of the role of submission in Islam, that's a line of discussion that might be worthwhile. — Banno

Arabs were tribal people who did a lot of trading, which involved travelling in caravans stuffed with precious stuff like metals, fabrics, and perfumes. The Prophet was such a travelling merchant. Raiding caravans was part of the culture. If I raid your caravan, I might give you an opportunity to swear allegiance to me. In return, I promise not to raid your caravans in the future.

This kind of arrangement was known as submission. The emergence of Islam involved the rise of one leader who demanded submission from all the Arabs. He united them in brotherhood. But by ending raiding, he created an economic problem that resulted in an explosion of Arabs into the Iranian world. This is why Iranians were originally not allowed to convert to Islam. If they converted, then no tribute could be taken from them.

The Iranians eventually retook their own territory. Now Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists have all converted to Islam. From this time onward, Islam will mostly be spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.

Somewhere along the way, somebody tweaked the meaning of submission to have something to do with submitting to God. Sounds good.

OK. But it appears the OP's first language is Russian, so maybe it was a translation problem. — frank

I see that as taking the principle of charity too far. I am all for making allowances for language difficulties in civilised discussion, or even for different intentions of meaning from someone whose first language is the same as mine. But extending it to someone handing out condemnations is twisting the principle beyond any recognition of what it is about. Somebody handing out condemnations need not expect charity from any quarter. I certainly would steer very clear of making condemnations in any language in which I was conversant but not expert. In fact, I am expert in English, and I try to avoid making condemnations in that language too.

I see that as taking the principle of charity too far. — andrewk

Me, too. I wondered if he might have been in the pay of Mr Putin.

Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience. That's what I would say to anyone who wasn't so far gone as to say Australia has a rape culture, I don't want to hear anymore out of you. I'm giving Banno every chance to start making sense, I've given that chance to everyone who has argued with me in this thread.


Okay... I didn't defend Christianity or make any comments about it, I just pointed out Banno is not being truthful when he said he condemned and never took part in the comparisons between Islam and Christianity/The West.


Labels? I'm describing your interpretations and pathology, which has been demonstrated in this thread. What do you want me to add to your comments? There are troubled kids at school, criminals who work in different industries and citizens of nations do bad things.

You didn't try to demonstrate a connection between Morrison and the shooter, you didn't try to explain why you thought the culture or the "experiences" should be blamed for what the shooter did. You failed to show that the shooter isn't an "other" and really, that's the biggest claim of all in my opinion. He's done something extraordinarily unusual and it's been condemned across the board in Australia but to you, he's what, what you could have been?

I think that one person, regardless of how bad of an apple he is, shouldn't poison our opinions of the bunch. Perhaps he never would have committed this crime if there wasn't any anti-Islamic sentiment in Australia but that doesn't mean we should condemn anti-Islamic sentiment for that reason. Just like how our society frowns upon sex offenders but that frowning upon them and murdering them, different things, do you see the difference?

Individuals need to take responsibility for their crimes and instead you are using an individual's crimes to attack anti-Islamic sentiment and although I don't know what form that takes right now from you, I do think there are valid concerns about Islam and I don't want any of them to be silenced because of the actions of a homicidal maniac and the low-quality ideas he had.

Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience. — Judaka

Interpretations of what? Of a political scene which you proudly professed your ignorence about? No, it's not my job to educate an 'audience' who is simultaneously proud of their ignorance yet happy to pronounce other's views as 'pathological', despite that self-same self-confessed political illteracy. You made your bed in mud: you don't get to fling it about as you attempt to crawl your way out.

That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means. — Judaka

What?

Rape culture? What is that?

Thanks for your comments, Mr Phil O'Sophy

Unfortunately you can paint an ugly picture of Islam (and many are extremely willing to do exactly that), but then you could do that with Christianity too. I remember this Dutch documentary about the Religious Right in America with the female reporter starting her documentary with the words: "In the Netherlands where I come from, I had grown up thinking that Christians are nice, tolerant people..."

Unfortunately biased sensationalism, alarmism and spreading fear sells. Views that try to be objective and while stating the good and bad sides try to put them into perspective are found to be confusing.

I could do with some cash though. I should probably get into the biased alarmist sensationalism business. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Perhaps you should start an organization called "Muslims for Trump" and go on Fox News. :joke:

Fox News would love that (if they haven't got that person already).

Now I only skimmed and looked at the pictures... but hey, nice.

The pictures were certainly eloquent.

The issue is not with Islam in particular, but with religion, or even more generally, ideology. Islam is just one example (albeit a predominant one) of how ideology works, not only to hinder human welfare, but to create such absolute dogmatic following that the factions will split among each other, thus reinforcing cohesion and group facilitation within the ethnic/religious/political group. Thus you get Muslims vs. Christians, Russians vs. Americas, Communists vs. Capitalist ect. ect. If anyone has read 1984 by George Orwell, one will see how this works to maintain perpetual war and conflict, thus resulting in the ultimate subjugation of the people in the groups from realizing the relativity and true purpose of their beloved dogma.

Religion is just one example of such ideology, culture plays a role, often ideologies are begot by cultures, and as Gramsci noted, ideologies beget (and construct) culture of their own. All of this is ideology, and intersubjective. It is not objective, absolute, or eternally universal/material in any sense. It is not subjective either (usually), felt only by the qualia of the experiencer. It is created among people's intersocial interactions, and exists to these subjective individuals involved in these interactions, seemingly objective to the individuals as well.

Which ideology is more "moral" is therefore a ridiculous question, seeing as it is just that, relative and intersubjective ideology, there is no 'true' value, and there certainly is no real comparison between any. They are all ideology-what other implications could there be?

I don't know much about Islam only what gets into the news. I tried to read some on the Wikipedia but I just couldn't keep my attention. Can you recommend good somewhat objective source of this subject? Another question when you compare Muslims to the west you mean countries with mostly Muslim population vs US and some countries in Europe?

To be fair, you didn't exactly moot my point. All I was doing was highlighting the prevalence of ideology. Commitment to anti-ideology is, as you pointed out, undeniably is its own form of meta-ideology. I'm not sure myself how to escape this circular trap, maybe enjoyment/participaition of ideology ironically? Like enjoying in spite of it's relativity?

yes they are! thank you for opening my eyes, taking me out of darkness and into the light! :cheer:

Never claimed to take you into the light. Perhaps there is not a light to be taken to? If man cannot exist asocially, that is, outside of intersubjective reality, then yes, perhaps ideology and all it entails; forms of religion, culture, is inextricable from humanity. But still, my overall point remains, what is the point over quibbling? Religion at least, if you want to involve a ranking system, is the most obtuse, and ridiculous of the ideologies that constitute human society. The fact that individuals still hold onto it into the twenty-first century baffles and alarms me.

Very recently the sultan of Brunei managed to focus the world's attention on the barbarity of large part of the Islamic world. His law about stoning to death gays and adulterers raised anger and boycotts in the West. But the sultan is not unique in this respect. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not far off.
The treatment of LGBT and the status of women are the current litmus pap test for civil society.

First start by reading the Quran. I had a friend named Nicholas Starkovsky who translated the Quran into English while extensively annotating it, you can find his work on Amazon. Other than that, read the news, they are frequently there.