In no way did he say or imply that he was talking about all Muslims. — Thorongil

I suggest you read more carefully. I did not say it did. But the post implies that any Muslim that is opposed to pornography and gay marriage supports terrorism.

When a Christian or atheist is opposed to gay marriage, the worst that is said about them is that they're a bigot. But according to said post, if they're a Muslim and are opposed to gay marriage they must be a terrorism supporter. The Pope - wrongly, in my opinion - is opposed to gay marriage. I have not heard anybody imply he supports terrorism.

The whole thing can be fixed by putting the word 'terrorist' after the word 'Muslim' in the first sentence. The absence of that extra word is damning.

But the post implies that any Muslim that is opposed to pornography and gay marriage supports terrorism. — andrewk

It was a rhetorical question, not a policy proposal. It is along the lines: the West requires and expects that Muslims consider revising the aspects of their scripture that support holy war and killing of infidels so as to better conform to the requirements of a pluralistic, global culture - that they abandon the concept of 'religiously-sanctioned violence'.

It's a perfectly reasonable demand. But I can easily envisage a counter-question - certainly, we will consider revising our views on such matters, but what do we get in return? Are we expected to observe social conventions that are explicitly in contradiction of our scriptures? Are we expected to believe that the prohibition on fornication is simply a matter of cultural convention?

Going on current social trends, it seems automatically assumed that in cases where it's gender identity and sexual politics, vs religious conscience, the former tends to win.

This is the same question as asked by Ross Douthat in his OP a few months back:

This is the issue lurking behind a lot of Western anxiety about Islam. On the one hand, Westerners want Islam to adapt and assimilate, to “moderate” in some sense, to leave behind the lure of conquest, the pull of violent jihad.

But for several reasons — because we don’t understand Islam from the inside, but also because we’re divided about what our civilization stands for and where religious faith fits in — we have a hard time articulating what a “moderate” Muslim would actually believe, or what we expect a modernized Islam to become.

I referenced this before, it was dismissed as 'rubbish', but I think Douthat is asking a perfectly valid question. The reason I posed it in that rhetorical manner is to highlight the contradictions in the 'liberal' view of the matter.

It was a rhetorical question, not a policy proposal. It is along the lines: the West requires and expects that Muslims consider revising the aspects of their scripture that support holy war and killing of infidels so as to better conform to the requirements of a pluralistic, global culture - that they abandon the concept of 'religiously-sanctioned violence'. — Wayfarer

That is not what you said. You did not mention scripture. You asked whether gay-marriage-opposing Muslims would abandon their support for terrorism if the West abandoned support for gay marriage.

Will you stop beating your wife if I agree with your view that Christianity is just lovely?

Fair point. It was not very well expressed in the first post.

No worries, let's move on. I think you were asking something about whether I think banning internet pornography and gay marriage would be a reasonable price to pay to get terrorists to stop their violence.

Personally, I do not think it would be reasonable. Firstly, I don't think it would work. I don't think those issues have much at all to do with the motivations of terrorists.

Secondly, if we agree to remove some of our freedoms for the sake of one group of people that threaten violence, it won't be long before the next group lines up to back their demands with actual or threatened violence.

It's like paying ransoms to kidnappers. However tempting it may be to do it, it's really bad policy to do so.

I'm no fan of the internet porn industry. I suspect a significant proportion of what it produces is exploitative and harmful. But if we close down that freedom of expression, what's next? I think advertising alcohol, gambling and junk food does far more harm than porn, and we're not banning that.

I'm not saying we should have no censorship, but I think we need to set a high bar for it. From my viewpoint, items that cleared the bar (ie qualified for censorship) would be gratuitously violent or undeniably exploitative.

Personally, I do not think it would be reasonable. Firstly, I don't think it would work. I don't think those issues have much at all to do with the motivations of terrorists. — andrewk

Of course it wouldn't work, and would never seriously be entertained. I only said it by way of highlighting the issue. It's all very well to say 'live and let live', yet even the purportedly 'value-free' nature of the secular state, actually does endorse an implicit value system - even if, as Vagabond Spectre noted, that value is 'abolition of values'. And that brings us to Ross Douthat's point about those who are willing to welcome Islam with open arms, but who won't contemplate the possibility that their values ought to be respected. Why? Because all values, or even the absence of values, are a matter of individual opinion. It sounds like 'live and let live' from inside liberalism, but it sounds like 'moral relativism' to any traditional believer.

And that brings us to Ross Douthat's point about those who are willing to welcome Islam with open arms, but who won't contemplate the possibility that their values ought to be respected. Why? Because all values, or even the absence of values, are a matter of individual opinion. — Wayfarer

I don't know what that fellow is on about, if what he says matches your paraphrase. I don't know anybody welcoming Islam with open arms, any more than they are welcoming Hinduism or capitalism with open arms when we admit refugees that have those characteristics. It is people, not beliefs, towards which we feel compassion.

Nor do I find the comment about moral relativism relevant. Only a Normative Moral Relativist would say that we should respect all moral beliefs, no matter how different from our own, and no matter how repugnant to us. The Normative Moral Relativist is a mythical creature that, in my experience, lives only in the fevered minds of those that believe that Divine Command Ethics is the only possible sort of Ethics.

The only moral relativists that exist in anything other than tiny fringe minorities maybe in some obscure corners of some campuses, and that are meaningful enough to distinguish, are Meta-Ethical Moral Relativists. We Meta-Ethical Moral Relativists are as ready as anybody else to decry repugnant practices of people of different cultures. But it is the practices, not the superficial labels, that one decries.

I suspect your opinion-piece writer doesn't know the difference between the two.

I suspect your opinion-piece writer doesn't know the difference between the two. — andrewk

I'll pass it on.

even the purportedly 'value-free' nature of the secular state, actually does endorse an implicit value system — Wayfarer

Could you expand on this?

Have a look at these two OP's in the NY Times

Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?

The Islamic Dilemma

The basic issue in both these essays, written from different perspectives, is that many values which secular liberals take for granted as self-evident truths, are actually embedded in a value system. This value-system often pretends to be 'value free', as it is supposedly 'scientifically enlightened'. But it does rest on normative judgements, many of which we take to be self-evident, but which might be questioned from the perspective of other cultural norms.

So well written. Thanks.

In my humble opinion, violence can't be surgically removed from religion. This isn't the fault of religon because if one considers other categories such as politics, civilization, culture, geography, etc., we still find violence. I think violence is better associated with being human rather than one particular aspect of what it is to be one (in this case religion, Islam in particular). So, violence as a distinguishing feature of religion is a poor metric for the reasons I mentioned above.

That said, there's an important characteristic of religious violence which is very important to take note of. Whether Christian, Moslem, etc. religious violence is always used as a means to the true end which is peace. I don't know how far people will assent to this view but people always say my religion (whichever) is a religion of peace. It makes sense because, for example, had the crusades been successful worldwide we'd all be Christian and there would be peace, even if in a narrow sense. Does this fact about religious violence allay the percieved evil?

that deserves a thread of its own. Would you want to make that?

Would like to, but a bit flat out at the moment in the real world, can't really give it the attention it might require. Thanks, though! X-)

cool