What stake do we have in defending Islam vs. Christianity? A plague on both their houses.

It would be a good thing if the world's various religions just went out of business--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, various animist cults, etc. There are bits and pieces here and there which might be alright to keep around, the food-oriented holidays, for instance.

Otherwise, get rid of it. Send your bibles, korans, and other holy books to be pulped and turned into toilet paper. Save the trees. Stop the nonsense.

Ridding the world of religion would not bring about world peace, of course. Hey, we'll still be human. It will just be clearer what we are fighting over. Like, "We're killing you because we hate your guts. Nothing personal, of course."

Obviously, sex with a goat is to be preferred over child-rape.

Indeed. As Sam Harris has said, it may increasingly be the case that the only people who are willing to honestly confront the problem of radical Islam are far-right xenophobes and racists. The left has simply become totally complicit on this issue, making a bizarre set of bedfellows with religious theocrats who hold decidedly anti-liberal views on many issues (so long as said theocrats come from a place where the people are poorer and browner than most people in the West - Christian theocracy would never be tolerated, of course). — Arkady

Yes.

Indeed, Christian theocracy is no longer tolerated--it is constrained by the larger society in which those with such a goal are a subgroup without the power to execute any such plans. But Islamic fundies have the power to establish and execute theocracies in their societies. There's not enough pushback to constrain them. Yet. As Harris often has said, it will require moderate Muslims to constrain the fundies, and it is such moderates that we non-Muslims would do well to encourage and support. The very damn least we can do is acknowledge that fundamentalist Mudlims are a threat, and they are inspired and motivated by their intransigent subscription to the their text. And, as I said earlier, what is needed is for enough Muslims to become cherry-picking experts tendentiously selecting, ignoring, emphasizing, explaining away, and re-defining the text, just like Jews and Christians do. This will result in a large enough subgroup to constrain the fundies.

Obviously, sex with a goat is to be preferred over child-rape. — Bitter Crank

And you can rape a child in many Muslim countries. There is no minimum age of "marriage" in Saudi and Yemen for example. The perfect moral example married a 6yr old after all.

There's not enough pushback to constrain them. Yet. As Harris often has said, it will require moderate Muslims to constrain the fundies, and it is such moderates that we non-Muslims would do well to encourage and support. — Brainglitch

This is C21. If reform of Islam was possible, it would have happened by now. Instead Islam as a whole is becoming increasingly fundamentalist, and yes, it achieves this through violence.

Islam's greatest tools are death to apostates, death to those who cause offense, and death to the kufar. Submission or death!

If reform of Islam was possible, it would have happened by now. — tom

Muslim societies have not had anywhere near the external interrelationships and pressures that are currently in play. It is these that can and do provide influence for possible reform.

On the other hand, perhaps it is too late, and there indeed will ensue a great violent Clash of Civilizations on an apocalyptic scale, as predicted in the texts.

Obviously, sex with a goat is to be preferred over child-rape. — Bitter Crank

Didn't think I'd ever see that said on here. LOL.

Is this statement justified by a utilitarian or a virtue ethics?

I don't know. Can't say I've given it much thought before.

Muslim societies have not had anywhere near the external interrelationships and pressures that are currently in play. It is these that can and do provide influence for possible reform. — Brainglitch

You've got to be joking! There was once an Islamic empire that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Also, let's not forget the Ottoman empire which lasted until 1922.

You've got to be joking! There was once an Islamic empire that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Also, let's not forget the Ottoman empire which lasted until 1922. — tom

Indeed.

But the individuals and societies they were interacting with were not evidencing or demanding the widely established liberal values that interactions with present day individuals and societies do--the very values that could influence reform. There was none of the pressure on them to reform that I spoke of.

But the individuals and societies they were interacting with were not evidencing or demanding the widely established liberal values that interactions with present day individuals and societies do--the very values that could influence reform. There was none of the pressure on them to reform that I spoke of. — Brainglitch

I think there was an opportunity lost in 1960s and 70s. Google "Afghan/Iranian women 1960s" etc and you will find photographs of beautiful, liberated, educated, modern women barely distinguishable from Europeans and Americans of the day. You might even find some photographs of the Hajj, which reveals women dressed in many different and colourful ways. Modesty 50 years ago did not mean the oppressive black burqa of today.

Then we had the Islamic revolutions and the rise of Saudi religious imperialism.

I agree, opportunity lost.

I've heard it said that the establishment of the theocracy in Iran was a reactionary response to too radically abrupt a societal shift toward western ways and values. And also that there has been a continuous undercurrent of resistance to the theocracy, and pressure to reform or even replace it.

I've heard it said that the establishment of the theocracy in Iran was a reactionary response to too radically abrupt a societal shift toward western ways and values. And also that there has been a continuous undercurrent of resistance to the theocracy, and pressure to reform or even replace it. — Brainglitch

Hence the violence. Islam's power rests in the use and religious justification of killing.

So I think it's a fair question to ask, should rights granted to religious groups be done on the basis of mutual recognition? In other words, why would a pluralist culture recognise the rights of a theocratic totalarianism, like Wahabism, part of the aim of which is the abolition of secular culture.
— Wayfarer

The question is not so much unfair as just incoherent. — andrewk

It is not in the least incoherent. It's a question of political philosophy and governance. Why can't such a question even be raised without the implication that it's discriminatory? Well, maybe it is discriminatory - maybe it's necessary to understand the difference between how different religious ideologies relate to the principles of democratic governance. The fact that it can't even be discussed is what plays into the hands of the right. It's not a matter of 'stripping rights' - it's simply something that ought to be debated. Where are the shining examples of pluralist Islamic democracies? Look at what's happening in Indonesia - there was large-scale civil insurrection because the Koran says that Muslims ought not to recognise a Christian governor - that same Christian governor is now on trial for having the temerity to challenge the mullahs. The Indonesian government, which is commited to pluralism, is battling to keep a lid on it.

(Abbott said the same in a speech after he was deposed as PM, and was of course castigated in the media for racism. That is what I mean by throwing the PC blanket over all debate.)


Those quotations from the oldest strata of the OT, are they not? People were stoned to death or made outcaste in such cultures. But there's nothing comparable to the numerous citations from the Quran about how unbelievers are to be treated.

Saves typing. Compared to you, anyone with a vague interest in this subject will be an expert. Is your vacuous virtue-signaling over? — tom

Are you still talking?

I think there was an opportunity lost in 1960s and 70s. Google "Afghan/Iranian women 1960s" etc and you will find photographs of beautiful, liberated, educated, modern women barely distinguishable from Europeans and Americans of the day. You might even find some photographs of the Hajj, which reveals women dressed in many different and colourful ways. Modesty 50 years ago did not mean the oppressive black burqa of today.

Then we had the Islamic revolutions and the rise of Saudi religious imperialism. — tom

You make it sound as if religion suddenly reared reared it's ugly head, but what caused it to do so?

What do you know about OPEC? The oil embargo of 73 (which was against the U.S among other nations) ended with the U.S exporting bombs and war machines directly to Saudi Arabian hands in exchange for increased oil production and sale to western markets. The Sauds were given everything they needed to raise their imperil flag. The US and SA both then funded and fueled anti-communist groups in the region without regard for how extreme their ideas might be, such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile in Iran, the inflationary effects of the embargo, along with corruption, lead to economic recession. When widespread protests and demonstrations against the Shah finally paralyzed the economy completely, the Ayatollah dominated the aftermath and systematically eliminated secular and political opposition before and after stepping in to create the new Islamic government.

My point isn't that religion is blameless, it's that it doesn't exist in a causative vacuum. The people of Afghanistan and Iran didn't simply double take between the Qur'an and women in bikinis and decide to pass a theocratic constitution, to fund and support radicalization, and to join terrorist organizations. Understanding the genesis of real world violence and the overall impacts of religion just isn't possible if at every point of inquiry the "religion did it" lens obfuscates all other factors.

Well, think of it this way. Mohammed died approximately 600 years after Jesus died. Christianity has had a 600 year head start, so to speak; it's had more time to "mature" and become peaceful. The bloodiest Christian religious war, the Thirty Years War in which Catholics and Protestants laid waste to each other and central Europe, took place in the 17th century, ending in 1648, a little over 400 years ago.

So, fair being fair, give Islam another 400-600 years before comparing it with Christianity as a religion. See you then.

Hence the violence. Islam's power rests in the use and religious justification of killing. — tom

As I said earlier, I think history reveals that the problem lies essentially in intransigent subscription to any ideology, whether religious or political, that demonizes non-adherents as mortal enemies.

I suspect that given the opportunity, a large number of Christian fundamentalists, too, would once again convince themselves that God has authorized them to estanlish a theocracy and unleash much violence against non-believers, as well as against non-compliant believers in need of divine correction. Currently, such Christian fundamentalists are constrained by the larger society of which they are a subset.

One remedy for such belief, according to the so-called New Atheists, is to stop giving religious notions a free pass, and instead challenge them--especially their epistemic warrant--as we would any other propositions.

But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam? — Mongrel

Same as in other religions for the most part: pomp and circumstance.

It takes well educated, well spoken, and well positioned apologists who know enough scripture to actually win the theological debate (at large) against staunch zealots. Tom kicks a fuss about the meaning of the word "Islam" being "submission", but a clever pontiff could easily argue "submission to peace and love" is Islam's objective.

I still remain surprised that a book which records the perfect will of god as a set of largely barbaric old laws manages to save the amount of face it does when contrasted with modern ethics and progressive values. The Bible explicitly tells you to put people to death for crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, and general disobedience, and yet because some of that stuff is somewhat contradicted by some other stuff from the Bible, everything is on the moral level. Islam has many similar instances of morally abhorrent positions, but it has some morally praiseworthy ones too. The way that a Muslim holy man can preach peace is the same way that modern Christians also do: by focusing on one aspect as more important than another.

Why can't such a question even be raised without the implication that it's discriminatory? — Wayfarer

I am not asking you not to raise it. I am asking you to make it comprehensible. Which rights are you proposing to remove, and from whom?

It's more complicated than that. If you're interested, I found Muhammad Qasim Zaman to be an excellent entrance to the topic. Modern Islamic Thought in a Radical Age, and The Ulama in Contemporary Islam were both great.

And a book that broadened my puny horizons was Religions of the Silk Road by Foltz.

am not asking you not to raise it. I am asking you to make it comprehensible. Which rights are you proposing to remove, and from whom? — andrewk

I'm not asking for anyone's rights to be removed. The question I'm asking is: how far should a pluralistic,secular political order go to accomodate an ideology which doesn't subscribe to the principles of a secular, pluralistic society? I think there is a reasonable expectation of reciprocal rights - that freedom of religion and expression requires acceptance of those principles. In other words, an alternative to the two extremes of total acceptance, on the one hand, and complete rejection (e.g. Pauline Hanson, Gert Wilders) on the other.

Your question is still not comprehensible. What do you mean by accommodate? It sounds to me like you're asking what rights we should withdraw from people that we choose to categorise against that ideology. You say it's not about withdrawing rights. OK, well then what then do you mean by 'accommodate'? What does it mean to 'reduce our accommodation of an ideology', in concrete, practical terms that involve real people?

i am saying that civil rights and freedoms depend on acceptance of a framework of laws and conventions which I don't think are compatible with the Islamic conception of civic law, which is essentially theocratic in nature. Perhaps that is why it has been so difficult to maintain democracies in Islamic societies.

Maybe the Islamic Friendship Society, here in Australia, has something to say about that. If so, I'd like to hear it. That is what I mean by 'a discussion'. But currently the 'discussion' is reduced to one of two poles - either Islam should be fully excluded (which is the Hanson view),or it should be accepted on its own terms.

Western societies went through centuries of conflict and negotiation to arrive at liberalism. Islam needs to do something similar in my view.

I'm afraid that doesn't give me any greater clarity about what you mean by 'accommodate', or what the question is that you want discussed.

At least Hanson has concrete proposals: like Trump, she wants to bar immigration from people who self-describe as Muslims, and maybe also from some Middle-Eastern majority Muslim countries. I oppose those proposals, but at least they are clear and concrete and can be discussed.

What is it that you want to discuss? What is your policy proposition? For instance, do you want all potential immigrants to be interviewed comprehensively to determine whether they support a peaceful, secular, democratic society, and rejected if suitably impartial and qualified assessors form the view that they do not? If so, I'm all for it.

Some of the ways one accommodates people who come from societies unfriendly to secular, liberal culture:

Along with everyone else,

1. Their children are required to go to public school and receive 12 years of training in the secular, liberal language, history, science, and civic institutions of the society.
2. Their young adults are liable for military service (unless physically unable)
3. Children, youth and adults may not impose their dietary restrictions on public kitchens
4. Children, youth, and adults may not engage in group religious rituals or wear specific religious clothing in public places (like schools, public institutions, public transit, etc.)
5. Standards accepted by the larger society in the area of dress or undress may not be challenged on a religious or specific basis. Don't like 95% of a body's skin exposed at beaches? Don't go there, then. Don't accept men and women sitting in the same whirlpool at the Y? Don't sit in the whirlpool, then.
6. Religious institutions (of all denominations) must fit into the surrounding community with respect to architectural styles, noise, outdoor events, and so on. Can the Holy Rollers open the windows and doors for their all night soul jam with highly amplified music and associated screaming? No. Can mosques broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day hearable beyond 500 feet? No. Can a 4-spired big-domed box be built in an area with colonial era architecture? No.
7. Employees of private firms can not claim exemption from contact with unclean or holy meat. We eat pork and we kill sacred cows. Don't like it? Tough.
8. Apply anti-discrimination law (on the basis of gender) where applicable.
9. Expose everyone to non-stop commercial messaging about products, consumerism, pornography, etc.

These are not altogether new issues. Orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish, Christian Scientists, Hutterites, Mennonites, Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, and atheists have all contended with civil authorities to work out the details. Peace church members, for instance, may not have to undergo combat training and service when drafted, but they have to spend 2 years doing demanding public service work. Amish children do not attend high school in some states beyond the 8th grade. Amish travelers have to abide by rules of the road when moving about in horse-drawn vehicles (signaling, using large reflective triangles, even lights on their carriages and wagons.

Catholics and Lutherans may run their own elementary and secondary schools, but they are obligated to conform to the state mandated curriculum guidelines. (Of course, when the state itself is ready to approve creationism, then what?)

As painful and difficult as it has been (the suffering is incalculable) Americans, for instances, have learned to live with the weird clothing of ultra-orthodox Jews, Traditional Amish, Hari-Krishna pan handlers and flower children (a couple of generations back) and so on. Americans have somehow learned to eat Lebanese, Greek, African, Vietnamese, and South American food. (The only kind of ethnic food restaurants missing in Minnesota are Norwegian, German, and Swedish. Strange. You would think in a place that is 60% NW European, there'd be more places serving sauerbraten, lefsa, pickled herring, liver dumplings, and such. If it wasn't for IKEA, there'd be no place to get Swedish meatballs with lingonberries.)

I didn't have anything that specific in mind, but that would be one way of approaching it.

That was the idea behind Australia's 'Citizenship Test'.

Very good editorial in today's NY Times about the kind of questions I'm raising

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

i am saying that civil rights and freedoms depend on acceptance of a framework of laws and conventions which I don't think are compatible with the Islamic conception of civic law, which is essentially theocratic in nature. — Wayfarer

No they don't. Fascist and communists openly organize in liberal democracies. The existing laws and civics are protection enough.

Fascist and communists openly organize in liberal democracies. — Frederick KOH

Do you think Islam is facist?