I objected to theocracies as a general proposition, regardless of whether they were terrorist. — Hanover

Ok. I misunderstood you, this I understand.

Theocratic rule is antithetical to the Western democratic norms, which I do believe superior to Muslim theocratic norms. — Hanover

Well as a general rule wouldn't you say without singling out a single theocracy, that generally theocratic rule itself is antithetical to democracy?

And, as I noted, and which you didn't respond to — Hanover

I missed it.

(2) the Vatican is a tiny administrative state without any inhabitants that don't choose to be there, so there is minimal oppression there. — Hanover

And you know this because its not in the news or have you been there? It is still a theocracy and going by your position regardless whether there is a presence of oppression isn't theocracy socially and politically against the foundation of what democracy stands for anyway?

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism — Hanover

Really? You seem biased:

6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups our media conveniently ignores

1. The Army of God

"A network of violent Christianists that has been active since the early 1980s, the Army of God openly promotes killing abortion providers—and the long list of terrorists who have been active in that organization has included Paul Jennings Hill (who was executed by lethal injection in 2003 for the 1994 killings of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett), John C. Salvi (who killed two receptionists when he attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts in 1994) and Eric Rudolph, who is serving life in prison for his role in the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996 and other terrorist acts. Rudolph, in fact, has often been exalted as a Christian hero on the Army of God’s website, as have fellow Army of God members such as Scott Roeder (who is serving life without parole for murdering Wichita, Kansas-based abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009), Shelley Shannon (who attempted to kill Tiller in 2003) and Michael Frederick Griffin (who is serving a life sentence for the 1993 killing of Dr. David Gunn, an OB-GYN, in Pensacola, Florida)."

2. Eastern Lightning, a.k.a. the Church of the Almighty God

"Eastern Lightning members Zhang Lidong and his daughter, Zhang Fan, were convicted of murder for the crime and executed in February. In a 2014 interview in prison, Lidong expressed no remorse when he said of Shuoyan, “I beat her with all my might and stamped on her too. She was a demon. We had to destroy her.”

3. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)

"The LRA, according to Human Rights Watch, has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings—and along the way, its terrorism spread from Uganda to parts of the Congo, the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan. The word “jihadist” is seldom used in connection with the LRA, but in fact, the LRA’s tactics are not unlike those of ISIS or Boko Haram."

4. TheNational Liberation Front of Tripura

"India is not only a country of Hindus and Sikhs, but also, of Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants. Most of India’s Christians are peaceful, but a major exception is the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT). Active in the state of Tripura in Northeastern India since 1989, NLFT is a paramilitary Christianist movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government in Tripura."

5. The Phineas Priesthood

White supremacist groups don’t necessarily have a religious orientation: some of them welcome atheists as long as they believe in white superiority. But the Christian Identity movement specifically combines white supremacist ideology with Christianist terrorism, arguing that violence against non-WASPs is ordained by God and that white Anglo Saxon Protestants are God’s chosen people."

6. The Concerned Christians

"In 1999, Israeli officials arrested 14 members of the Concerned Christians in Jerusalem and deported them from Israel because they suspected them of plotting terrorist attacks against Muslims. One likely target, according to Israeli police, was Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque—the same mosque that was targeted in 1969 (when a Christianist from Australia named Denis Michael Rohan unsuccessfully tried to destroy it by arson) and, Israeli police suspect, was a likely target in 2014 (when Adam Everett Livix, a Christianist from Texas, was arrested by Israeli police on suspicion of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem)."

Source:https://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/

I know, I know I'm sure you'll move the goal post after learning about this...

but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. — Hanover

No True Scotsman now?

I can tell you don't do research.....To much "I don't think" and "I believe" usage. Next time come with facts to substantiate your claims. you're talking to a researcher not some armchair scholar.

What you said is all facts. Ironic people don't do the research to see this.

He explained to me that as a Muslim he would be obliged - it would be his duty - to kill me, a non-Muslim, in the event of a declaration of a jihad to that effect. This well before 9-11, before even the Iraq wars. — tim wood

No matter how academically intelligent someone is, they are still susceptible in developing or lack thereof poor social skills. Now, this ONE encounter I'm sure left a bad taste in your mouth. After all, if some south east Asian told me according to their faith anyone who wore a Cowboys sweatshirt needs to be decapitated I'd be disturbed.

I draw from this that Islam, in terms of modern Western morality, is about 800 years in arrears of Christianity. — tim wood

So you drew your opinion regarding Islam from one encounter? I'd hate to see what you think of other people in the world if you encountered someone of a certain demographic and the encounter was negative.

I draw this generalization because my interlocutor at the time was both intelligent and well-informed. — tim wood

So wait, did you draw the inference that because he was intelligent academically this somehow traverse to be knowledgeable and accurate socially? My friend this is the wrong time to draw these types of parallels. I am no scholar in Islam but I know enough of the basics of Islam plus kalam plus parts of Hadfith and Shari'ah Law to know that killing someone unjustly and without provocation nor in the interest of defending one's property is a sin in Islam. your Pakistani friend is for the lack of a better word, a dumbass and I'm sure if I met him and challenged him to recite Suratul Al-Ihklas off the top of his head he wouldn't know it.

And in passing, in the past few days the Sultan of Brunei has decreed death for adulterers and homosexuals. The idea is that Muslim apologists the world around have work to do in cleaning up their own houses. We all do, to be sure, but some more than others, a lot more. — tim wood

The problem with your story is you took the example of one dumbass Pakistani who is more than likely Muslim by culture than Muslim by spirituality. Averroes the philosopher believed that using one's intellect is central to the tenants of Islam. Your friend, whom you referred laughably as intelligent said that if he was obliged to kill you, he would. Obviously he isn't exercising the most important faculty of the brain which is his frontal lobe considering that off the impulse and encouragement of another, he would take the life of a human being. When in fact the Qur'an says the following:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God does not love transgressors” (2:190).

Which means to defend yourself against those that mean you harm, but if they stop then you must stop and not transgress.

"take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that you may learn wisdom" (Koran 6:151).

"that if anyone killed a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land" (Koran 5:32).

Yes, for all intensive purposes your Pakistani friend was an idiot of his own faith and not as smart as you thought he was. Like I said before, there are plenty of Muslims who are Muslim by culture and not by spirituality or religion. I'm no Muslim, but its funny how I see so many Muslims saying dumb shit like your friend all the time as if they know their religion but what they are doing is parroting shit they learn from either their family, or their immediate community.

And you know this because its not in the news or have you been there? It is still a theocracy and going by your position regardless whether there is a presence of oppression isn't theocracy socially and politically against the foundation of what democracy stands for anyway? — Anaxagoras

I know what the Vatican is because I am generally educated, not because I've been there. As to my claims that it is tiny (it's 110 acres), it has a very small population (approximately 1,000) and there is no rank and file involuntary citizenship (citizenship is obtained by selection and service to the church), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Citizenship . Comparing the Vatican to Saudi Arabia, for example, to prove that Christians similarly have theocracies seems quite a stretch.

You then cite the following from my prior post:

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism
— Hanover — Anaxagoras

In response to this, you cite 6 instances of terrorist groups that use Christianity in support of their terror.

Anticipating that I might not find your examples persuasive, you state:

I know, I know I'm sure you'll move the goal post after learning about this... — Anaxagoras

The problem with this line of discussion is that it is terribly disingenuous because it inaccurately cites me and then it accuses me of changing facts to support my claim. What I actually said was:

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism,but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. — Hanover

Emphasis added

What this means is that I didn't move the goalposts, but what I did was admit that there are Christians who do unChristian things in the name of Christianity, and I didn't deny that occurs with Muslims as well. What you've done is to remove a critical part of my post and then prove to me that the critical part of my post shouldn't have been removed by you.

I can tell you don't do research.....To much "I don't think" and "I believe" usage. Next time come with facts to substantiate your claims. you're talking to a researcher not some armchair scholar. — Anaxagoras

This is all ad hom. Your analysis of me and of yourself, even if correct, is irrelevant, designed only to self-congratulate and offend.

Which means to defend yourself against those that mean you harm, but if they stop then you must stop and not transgress. — Anaxagoras

Tell us then, from authority, what the obligation of any Muslim is with respect to a jihad. Or maybe the obligation depends on the kind of Muslim - if there are different kinds. I'm thinking that jihads and fatwas are binding on Muslims, ignored at the peril of the individual ignoring it, whether spiritual peril or material or both.

That is, I know enough about Christianity to know that people who reasonably and with reason call themselves Christians can reasonably disagree on a lot of things, without in their own Christianity risking either their faith or their salvation, such as they may be.

If a priest instruct me to murder, I do not feel or think that either my faith or salvation such as they may be are in any danger from my not complying with the instruction. Can a Muslim say the same?

I suppose the deeper distinction is that as a Christian, as I suppose myself to be, I own my faith and all the decisions I make concerning it. And that just is - a sine qua non of - my faith. Christians, that is, as I understand it, are supposed to grow to a point that they are the owners of their faith. The question to you: so, as with Muslims? Or different - and how?

Morrison, Dutton, the Liberal party, et al, have been terrible with respect to the postion of Muslims in the Australian community. Their rhetoric and understanding of Muslim has been postioning them as an outsider and a threat for years. Parts of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto read exactly like comments our politicians have made. They been drumming up and trading on anti-islamic sentiment for years.

Morrison, Dutton, the Liberal party, et al, have been terrible with respect to the postion of Muslims in the Australian community. Their rhetoric and understanding of Muslim has been postioning them as an outsider and a threat for years. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What exactly are you referring to?

The various comments the Muslim community being distinct from the Australian one, dog whistles about our identity bring lost to migrant (and Muslim) interlopers, the underlying notion we are a superiority Australian community to which the Muslims living here do not belong. They've been barraging us with it for years.

Comparing the Vatican to Saudi Arabia — Hanover

There are 50 Muslim countries. Your position was generalized towards other theocracies but you are only talking about one theocratic government.

The problem with this line of discussion is that it is terribly disingenuous because it inaccurately cites me and then it accuses me of changing facts to support my claim. — Hanover

Because in reality I knew you'd move goal posts. In addition to that I knew you were heading towards the "No True Scotsman" argument as you emphasized:

but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. — Hanover

Since the emphasis was added, can we also emphasize that out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the government including some of the Muslims in political power we can say the same for the particularly misguided ones or do we not extend that same favor?

and I didn't deny that occurs with Muslims as well. — Hanover

You didn't deny but you did not affirm the position either. you're affirming the position of Christians yet you're not doing it for Muslims which leads me to believe you're leaving it ambiguous. I was very clear in my position that there are Christians who do commit to violence using their religion just like any other faith in the world.

This is all ad hom. Your analysis of me and of yourself, even if correct, is irrelevant, designed only to self-congratulate and offend. — Hanover

Because when I am going to substantiate a claim I rather use evidence to substantiate a claim as opposed to using dialectical arguments to support my position. If I'm going to say X is true, i need evidence to support that X is true. I do not mean to offend you but it is quite frustrating that you've taken over the OP's position right after you proclaim to have said that at most, you disagree with the OP, several responses later, I find myself thinking that you're position and the Op's position is the same, you're just articulating it differently using conjecture and jargon.

It is distinct in some ways obviously, what that should mean is another thing entirely. Muslims living abroad is another matter than Muslims living here now and "underlying notions" too vague to take at face value.

I've heard the anti-Muslim immigration and to be honest, I support it, I don't think the West has been even remotely responsible with it so far. It's a very difficult situation. I would not agree with treating Australian-Muslims differently based on their religion but here's the problem with rhetoric in politics, attacks on individuals and beliefs are interpreted as assaults on the group.

Rooting out Islam extremist, preventing terrorism, handling immigration responsibly and with the intention of assimilation, criticising aspects of Islam like sharia law and many negative interpretations. All that and more is valid and necessary and if it makes Muslims feel like they don't belong here or non-Muslims feel that Muslims don't belong here then the solution can't come from failing to do those aforementioned things and much more, which is all necessary.

It probably happened that the liberal party has overstepped what was necessary or failed to do that which was necessary to protect and integrate Australian-Muslims. I do not think it is as bad as you say.

Tell us then, from authority, what the obligation of any Muslim is with respect to a jihad. — tim wood

In understanding obligatory Jihad, one must understand what Jihad means in context to hadith/Qur'an. I'm no scholar, but from my limited understanding of Jihad which means struggle, the greater Jihad is the spiritual maintenance of oneself when they are engaged in the world. Maintaining their duties as Muslims such as prayer, paying the "poor rate," being kind, going to work, having the right mind and mentality etc. An argument could be made being a Muslim of sound mind and that is rightly guided means one is in a struggle for Jihad. Military campaigns are minor when it comes to the concept of Jihad as opposed to the greater Jihad which is the struggle within oneself:

"Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment."

Source:http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

if there are different kinds. — tim wood

There are only two conceptually, the minor (military, diplomacy, economic etc) and major (struggle with oneself spiritually and religiously).

I'm thinking that jihads and fatwas are binding on Muslims, ignored at the peril of the individual ignoring it, whether spiritual peril or material or both. — tim wood

Unfortunately, fatwas or religious edicts have been the subject of controversy, and even some are just downright abnormal. I was actually looking for some popular ones but came across a New York times article that discusses some ridiculous ones:

"CAIRO — First came the breast-feeding fatwa: It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times. Then came the urine fatwa: It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing........

For many Muslims, fatwas, or religious edicts, are the bridge between the principles of their faith and modern life. They are supposed to be issued by religious scholars who look to the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad for guidance.

While the more sensational pronouncements grab attention, the bulk of the fatwas involve the routine of daily life. In Egypt alone, thousands are issued every month.

The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued and many rely on ideology more than learning."

Source:https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/africa/11iht-fatwa.4.6098135.html

So as you can see, a lot of these so-called religious scholars trying to bring people back into the fold of Islam largely are seemingly influenced by their own self-perception of the world and by politics. Much like how local mayors can present a city ordinance, similarly the same is said for the so-called scholars, the problem with that is the people in various Muslim countries are under obligation to observe them.

That is, I know enough about Christianity to know that people who reasonably and with reason call themselves Christians can reasonably disagree on a lot of things, without in their own Christianity risking either their faith or their salvation, such as they may be. — tim wood

That is debatable. If we are talking about reason, then where is the reason behind right to life and death penalty? What is the reason behind evangelicals thinking a zygote is a human and has the capacity and same rights as a human? Much less the capacity and rights like that of a new born baby? What about Christians who drink poison and handle venomous snakes? Does that sound reasonable to you, or are you making an anecdotal reference to the Christians you know versus the Muslims you barely or don';t know?

As someone who has grown up Christian for most of his childhood into adult life I've been subjected to some strange behaviors of Christians who didn't seem to reason. Very often many Christians seemed to have castigated others simply because they are not of the faith. How is this reasonable? You'd find many Christians and Muslims who are conservative are very much the same.

If a priest instruct me to murder, I do not feel or think that either my faith or salvation such as they may be are in any danger from my not complying with the instruction. Can a Muslim say the same? — tim wood

Muslims are like you and me here in the states. They go to basketball games, and do daily activities all the damn time and you rarely hear about it. Crime in the United States are committed by more Christian Americans than any other religious group. Sure there are more Christians here in the states but going back to what you're saying about reason, it sounds like more American Christians act more unreasonable than there Muslim counterparts. Arguing otherwise comes from a position of bias because the research does not lie:

Americans are more likely to be attacked by far-right terrorists than Islamists

"(According to the Investigative Fund, an independent journalism organisation, “far-right plots and attacks outnumber Islamist incidents by almost two to one.”)

And the reason for Trump’s PC position? It’s straightforward – if scary. “Radical Islamic terrorists” aren’t part of his base. “White supremacist terrorists” are."

Source:https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/03/americans-are-more-likely-be-attacked-far-right-terrorists-islamists

The question to you: so, as with Muslims? Or different - and how? — tim wood

Well, I'm not Muslim but I believe I grow as I learn and continue to exist in life. I believe the average Muslim at least from my personal experience as well as in the religious text, are responsible for their own soul which is why they are full aware of their own religious eschatology.

Sorry the long post.

my basement does not have under developed social skills. — Banno

Your debasement does though!

Anyone who thinks "The West" or "Islam" can be conceptualized as a monolith, unquestionably has a child's understanding of history and modernity. That's all there is to it.

Anyone who thinks "The West" or "Islam" can be conceptualized as a monolith, unquestionably has a child's understanding of history and modernity. — Maw

I more or less agree with this.

That's all there is to it. — Maw

But this is wrong. Can one criticize the West as such? Can one criticize Islam as such? Even though I may have indulged in both in the past, in the end I think both kinds of criticism are pretty stupid. Notice that both of these stupid criticisms have appeared in this discussion.

There are 50 Muslim countries. Your position was generalized towards other theocracies but you are only talking about one theocratic government. — Anaxagoras

Why ignore the point made? Show some balance or forever look a fool whose own words harms his position.

It is kind of backwards to espouse views about conservatives being mostly bigoted and homophobic on one hand yet defending a religion, the members of whom applaud terrorism quite openly in numerous countries with high muslim populations, yet you’re willing to lump together others to suit your agenda.

I do imagine that the vast majority of muslims in western countries are perfectly respectable people with perfectly respectable ideas and views (firsthand experience would back this up). As for views and actions in other nations ... nope! In Brunei the sultan has just brought stoning of homosexuals back. You seem obsessed with viewing all human affairs through a US lens.

But this is wrong. Can one criticize the West as such? Can one criticize Islam as such? — jamalrob

If one wants to criticize either, they should point out moral flaws and historical failings, but that would inevitably entail acknowledging a multiplicity of moral values and historicity, if one wanted to be intellectually honest, and given the context of the thread there is no intellectual honesty that can emerge from this conversation.

I've heard the anti-Muslim immigration and to be honest, I support it, I don't think the West has been even remotely responsible with it so far. — Judaka

Why and which part of it? What things have been done and were left done that you consider irresponsible?

It's a very difficult situation. I would not agree with treating Australian-Muslims differently based on their religion but here's the problem with rhetoric in politics, attacks on individuals and beliefs are interpreted as assaults on the group.

But politicians know quite well how their words will be interpreted by most. A lot of people think Muslims are the problem, where before 9/11 it wasn't Muslims but Johnny Foreigner in general. The discourse changed and so did people's attitude to groups. Nuance dies a quiet death in most discussions about this subject.

Rooting out Islam extremist, preventing terrorism, handling immigration responsibly and with the intention of assimilation, criticising aspects of Islam like sharia law and many negative interpretations. All that and more is valid and necessary and if it makes Muslims feel like they don't belong here or non-Muslims feel that Muslims don't belong here then the solution can't come from failing to do those aforementioned things and much more, which is all necessary.

Why must it be assimilation? If I were to move to Saudi-Arabia or Abu Dhabi am I supposed to give up my cultural roots? I'm not supposed to listen to Dutch music, not go to church but should go to a Mosque? Not eat potatoes but couscous instead? etc. etc. There's examples of "ghettos" that are very successful in lining up second generation immigrants to participate (more) fully in the host country, without significant loss of cultural heritage.

As to Sharia. There's an interesting discussion to be had about freedom of choice, contract and religion here as well. Why should I not subject myself to a Sharia tribunal if I were to choose that freely? There's certainly an issue where people are forced or coerced to accept a Sharia tribunal but that is not the same as having issue with the application of Sharia to begin with, which you seem to do.

I mean, is it really so different to enter into a contract between two Dutch persons (where I live) and elect a Hong Kong tribunal and Hong Kong law to govern the contract? This is entirely possible now. Why is Sharia to be treated differently than Hong Kong law? If the result isn't contrary to ordre public there's no reason for the local legal order not to accept giving effect to it.

As to not feeling like they belong; I think the foreigner, irrespective of his religious persuasion, belongs in the Netherlands if he got here legally. Why should the feelings of people who feel this foreigner doesn't belong be taken more seriously than my feelings? It's all well and good you think Muslims shouldn't belong in Dutch society but I happen to disagree.

I think what is needed in, for instance, Dutch society, is a broad discussion on what we think a fair and just immigration policy should look like. I don't think that should focus on Muslims but should be general and true for anyone wishing to permanently settle in the Netherlands from outside of the EU. What's too much and what isn't? What about fugitives?

Well the thing is he is making an absolutist claim in the OP!

I've already had multiple arguments on this thread about interpreting what politicians mean, it's not black and white and amateur thinkers believe their interpretations need to be contended with like facts. Even interpreting what I mean is a struggle for those who are overly sensitive about this topic. Islam gets special treatment from a lot of people, to protect and demonize, it isn't treated for what it is.

What is absolutely clear to me is that Islam can be a religion of peace and charity, promoting good values IF you meet the person who interprets Islam to be that way. That is not what Islam is but it is what Islam can be (and thus is for that person) and when Islam is fine then it's fine. Take away Islam, forget the reasoning for their beliefs and if their beliefs are within the realms of acceptability in Western society then we're 99% of the way to not caring about this person's Islam.

Assimilation means intermingling, shared language, shared core values, integration into workforce and communities. If you moved to Saudi Arabia and moved into a Dutch-neighbourhood and never learned proper Arabic or shared any values with the people living there, yeah, you're not even part of the country as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care about music or what you eat, this is where context is important because there's no value in overexaggerating how similar "Australians" and then contrasting it to Muslims. I watch anime, listen to all kinds of music but dislike generic Western music, most of my hobbies are not well regarded such as even philosophy and I disagree with people politically on a far more profound level than I disagree with peaceful interpretations of Islam.

Small cultural conclaves seem harmless but once they become large enough to be a political force and cause social problems, the lack of assimilation starts to show itself as a serious problem. Many countries in Europe have let in too many Muslims with no attempts to even look at their interpretation of Islam or assimilate them. I don't care that it's nihilistic and relativistic to a fault and just pretty careless to say they belong in the country when there's literally no assimilation going on, it's just entirely unpragmatic.

The problem specifically with Islam is that it's clear that either the religion or the culture of many Islamic countries allows for or encourages interpretations of Islam which are not within the realms of acceptability for Western values. Refugees should be helped but by trying to figure out solutions for the countries they lived in and seeing how the West can assist there. There are lots of poor and unfortunate people across the world and most of them don't carry the same religious and cultural risks as Muslims but of course, the solution to the world's problems isn't getting 0.0001% of them into Western countries.

The Australian government's job is to look after the Australian people and Australian interests and I don't see how the irresponsible acts of the German and Sweden governments and others can be explained from that perspective. The purpose of immigration shouldn't be to save people, foreign aid and being a helpful global community is important and that's where the focus should be.

As for Sharia law, if you just remove the fact that there's this thing called Sharia law and get rid of Islam. Look at what is actually being believed and forgetting why and then asking, is this something I want in the country or not. As far as I am concerned, most of Sharia law is absolutely ridiculous, anti-science, misogynistic, intolerant, 10th-century-logic nonsense and even if you decide you want to live like that, I don't see why it should be allowed. If you somehow are ignoring every bad aspect of Sharia law then I suppose I won't even ever know you follow it. It comes down to what the actual beliefs are and not the name of "Sharia law".

I’ve got to the point where the mention of “Islam” or “muslim” makes me feel like a saggy old cloth cat ... YAWN! ;)

Probably the only thing that seems self evident is universal basic freedoms — aporiap

What I think needs to be justified are universal basic rights — aporiap

I wasn't thinking of self-evident proposals. Rather, there are some propositions, the denial of which tells us about the denier.

It’s part of the nature of ought propositions. Because they set out how the world ought be, they tell us the attitude of those who accept them.

So if someone rejects, for example, religious freedom, they ought explain why.

Same for human rights. They do not need justification. Rather, their rejection requires justification.

Islam is like an innocent child instead of a very old and mature religion. — frank

Yeah.

Islam is also imagined as monolithic; any sort of nuance would make it more difficult to maintain the bigotry.

Acts are performed by individuals, not by conglomerations. Individuals are the actors in moral narratives.

Neither Christianity nor Islam can sensibly be treated as individual; hence neither can validly lay claim to moral superiority.

Can you explain what "othering" is and why you feel it's important to bring up here? — Judaka

I had in mind Arendt, judgement as a social act and the banality of evil.

Treating folk as other is excluding them from a role in our making a judgement. Their view, their needs, are not significant in our judgements. This sort of stupidity Arendt attributed to Eichmann. It seems to me to be the same unoriginal stupidity evident in the OP.

He tells us a story about the Ilya which pictures him as a westerner (possibly Australian) who condemns some other group in order to raise himself up. He entirely discounts the content of the OP in the process. — frank

In a sense, Ilya does what Arendt attributes to Eichmann; so there is something to Frank's reading.

What I am at pains to point out is the stupidity of treating Islam as one.

The post that Banno made on this thread is the most repugnant and absurd comment I've ever read. — Judaka

I'm so pleased!

he's leveraging a tragedy for political purposes. — Judaka

There was a recent exposé in which this phrase was commended to a right-wing Australian political party - One Nation - by no less an authority on mass shootings than the NRA.

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.

Ah, but then, that's America. Where there cannot be such a reaction.

In New Zealand, the political action was swift, appropriate and all but unanimous. Assault rifles are no longer legal.

That's a good thing.

I believe that Muslims should be judged for what they believe and do and not the religion they follow, even if the two can be linked. — Judaka

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

interpretative relevance — Judaka

There was a thread on this, No?

What is it?

Exactly. The whole idea that reacting politically to an event like that is somehow taboo is incredibly stupid. Of course one ought to have a political reaction to it; it calls for political response - otherwise one is left with 'thought and prayers' or whatever useless shit Americans like to do.

The general underlying point seems to me to be that we’re incredibly quick to distance ourselves from another’s crime so as not to face up to the fact that we’re capable of the same kind of acts (being human) and that the societal norms we’re born into may just have played a part in the crimes. The veery fact that we can consider these crimes is a good thing - in and of itself it’s little more than misdirected “action” given the form of outrage without consideration of what leading human beings to commit such extraordinary acts. — I like sushi

Yep, that's it.

"These people don't deserve names," Mr Morrison later said. "Names imply some sort of humanity and I struggle to see how anyone who would engage in this sort of hate and violence is human. He doesn't deserve a name."

- SMH

What to make of this? If the terrorist is not human, then he is not one of us, and we do not have to consider how our actions contributed to his actions.

That's unacceptable.

The problem with the OP isn't that it 'has problems with a culture and religion'; it's that it conceptualizes them in ways so thin and shallow as to be not only useless but actively harmful. Anyone who wants to talk about religion and culture without at the same time talking economics, politics, and social conditions is a priori ruled out of having anything meaningful whatsoever to say. The OP presents a shallow story for piddling minds. — StreetlightX

Not bad for a fellow basement-dweller.