I'm afraid the fundy christians and the fundy muslims are gonna get us all killed.

[Malintent]

What about the free thinkers out there that believe there is no such thing as a peaceful muslim? Are they cause for fear as well?

Can't fear what doesn't really exist... like Biologists that believe that Evolution is a hoax... fear them?

 

[Jayjay]

We're making progress.

No, I am blaming the ringleaders and the more immediate tribe of western muslim asshats who enable this type of behaviour.

What "tribe" would that be? Does this tribe have a website I can visit?

They do: http://www.islamicboard.com

In an earlier post that you derided, I compared the majority of muslims to passangers and the noisy, outspoken ones as captains who steer the whole ship.

Yes, I derided your post because the comparison is ludicrous on its face. Islam is not a boat, nor is Islam in Europe, nor Islam in France. Ordinary Muslims lead their own individual lives the same way the rest of society does.

Most people of any religion are "passengers". They just go with the flow because that is what is socially acceptable and is the path of least resistance. Nothing wrong with that usually, and these are not the people I am blaming. It's the ringleaders, and the outspoken ones that ought to be confronted, not the random bloke on the street who's done nothing.

I blame the captains for being enablers, and the hypocrites who "condemn" these attacks while doing nothing else posers who just want to polish their own religion and would rather sweep inconvenient aspects of it under the rug. Repeating a condemnation becomes a rote, just as repeating "je suis charlie" becomes a rote that means absolutely nothing.

Or maybe rather than "polish their religion," they simply want people like you to stop placing demands and expectations on them due to the actions of others. Rational people understand that the blame for a crime rests on those who committed it, not everyone who happens to belong to the same community.

And rational people understand that those criminals don't exist in a vacuum. To turn look at it frm another perspective, what about the terrorist attacks against mosques by right wing assailants? How do you think I as white European male should react, when my "tribesmen" do crimes like that? Shrug my shoulders and pretend it's not my problem because those were lone nutters, while continuing to vote in right wing populists and conservatives, while continuing to demonize poor people for being poor, while maintaining generally anti-immigration attitude and participating in public discourse where I do my small part furthering these values?

 

[ksen]

What about the free thinkers out there that believe there is no such thing as a peaceful muslim? Are they cause for fear as well?

Can't fear what doesn't really exist... like Biologists that believe that Evolution is a hoax... fear them?

Just to be clear, you're saying there are no atheists/freethinkers/skeptics that think there is no such thing as a peaceful muslim?

 

[Warpoet]

They do: http://www.islamicboard.com

Is this meant to be funny or something?

Most people of any religion are "passengers". They just go with the flow because that is what is socially acceptable and is the path of least resistance. Nothing wrong with that usually, and these are not the people I am blaming. It's the ringleaders, and the outspoken ones that ought to be confronted, not the random bloke on the street who's done nothing.

No, most people are not "passengers," because they are not going to the same destination. Most are just busy living their lives. If by "ringleaders" you mean people who might be involved in planning an attack such as this, then yes, they should be held accountable. But that's not what you said.

And rational people understand that those criminals don't exist in a vacuum. To turn look at it frm another perspective, what about the terrorist attacks against mosques by right wing assailants? How do you think I as white European male should react, when my "tribesmen" do crimes like that? Shrug my shoulders and pretend it's not my problem because those were lone nutters, while continuing to vote in right wing populists and conservatives, while continuing to demonize poor people for being poor, while maintaining generally anti-immigration attitude and participating in public discourse where I do my small part furthering these values?

I would expect that you are a reasonably sane and moral person, and that you do not think attacking mosques is appropriate behavior. I would not expect anything from you simply because you're a white European male.

If you are saying that people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who advocate violence or otherwise sow divisions should be challenged, then this is also reasonable. But it's also not what you originally said.

 

[Trausti]

Is there a predominately Muslim country where people are free to convert to the religion of their choice, or be openly atheist? Openly critique or criticize Islam and its tenets? Be openly gay or lesbian? Maybe Turkey? Maybe not? Instead of imagining peace loving and tolerant Muslims, surely there are real-world examples we can point to where Muslims are in the positions of power.

 

[Warpoet]

Is there a predominately Muslim country where people are free to convert to the religion of their choice, or be openly atheist? Openly critique or criticize Islam and its tenets? Be openly gay or lesbian? Maybe Turkey? Maybe not? Instead of imagining peace loving and tolerant Muslims, surely there are real-world examples we can point to where Muslims are in the positions of power.

Yes, let's all follow this logic, because people in positions of power, especially in corrupt and/or authoritarian countries, are such a useful metric for passing judgment on the people they are supposedly responsible for.

 

[Jayjay]

Most people of any religion are "passengers". They just go with the flow because that is what is socially acceptable and is the path of least resistance. Nothing wrong with that usually, and these are not the people I am blaming. It's the ringleaders, and the outspoken ones that ought to be confronted, not the random bloke on the street who's done nothing.

No, most people are not "passengers," because they are not going to the same destination. Most are just busy living their lives. If by "ringleaders" you mean people who might be involved in planning an attack such as this, then yes, they should be held accountable. But that's not what you said.

Indeed it is not. Detaining and punishing the actual planners is a job for the law enforcement, and that's not the issue here. The issue is how we should deal with the wider community that fosters these fanatics and lives in denial that it's their stupid belief system and their uncritical adherence to it that causes these problems. And I'm not even saying they should be killed or their houses of worship burned down (which is what some people do), just that they should be called out on it. Is that unreasonable thing to ask? If your idiotic religion is causing people to periodically go shoot other people because of cartoons, is it ok for you to go on "living your life" as if it's not your concern? Especially the hypocrites who shed crocodile tears by "condemning" the attacks by taking this opportunity to express their displeasure at said cartoons and how they should be banned, while at the same time whitewashing their religion of any culpability whatsoever.

And rational people understand that those criminals don't exist in a vacuum. To turn look at it frm another perspective, what about the terrorist attacks against mosques by right wing assailants? How do you think I as white European male should react, when my "tribesmen" do crimes like that? Shrug my shoulders and pretend it's not my problem because those were lone nutters, while continuing to vote in right wing populists and conservatives, while continuing to demonize poor people for being poor, while maintaining generally anti-immigration attitude and participating in public discourse where I do my small part furthering these values?

I would expect that you are a reasonably sane and moral person, and that you do not think attacking mosques is appropriate behavior. I would not expect anything from you simply because you're a white European male.

If you are saying that people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who advocate violence or otherwise sow divisions should be challenged, then this is also reasonable. But it's also not what you originally said.

The problem is this: those guys are beyond our sphere of influence. A preacher who wants division between his flock and whatever he considers to be heretics or outsiders, is not concerned with challenges coming from said heretics. On the contrary, that's what he thrives on. The people who are in our sphere of influence are the folks who have something to share with us, the so called moderates. They share our culture by watching the same news, reading the same newspapers, speaking the same language, goign to the same grocery stores, working in same companies, having their kids in the same schools, and frequenting in the same discussion forums and engaging with the wider society. They in turn have some influence within their communities. Sure they might feel distressed because there is a conflict between what they think is moral (don't kill people!), and what their religion tells them to think (cartoons are bad!), but that doesn't mean that they should resolve this conflict by just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is there a predominately Muslim country where people are free to convert to the religion of their choice, or be openly atheist? Openly critique or criticize Islam and its tenets? Be openly gay or lesbian? Maybe Turkey? Maybe not? Instead of imagining peace loving and tolerant Muslims, surely there are real-world examples we can point to where Muslims are in the positions of power.

It wasn't too long ago when many western countries didn't tolerate open atheists, open homosexuals, or religious or ethnic minorities. I'm almost old enough to have been alive when interracial marriage was illegal in some places in the United States. There are still states where you can be fired from a job for being gay. Give some of these countries time. It's not like western countries are 100% perfect even now in these categories. There are some other categories where some of these countries are even ahead of the United States. Even Pakistan has had a female head of state.

 

[Warpoet]

Indeed it is not. Detaining and punishing the actual planners is a job for the law enforcement, and that's not the issue here. The issue is how we should deal with the wider community that fosters these fanatics and lives in denial that it's their stupid belief system and their uncritical adherence to it that causes these problems. And I'm not even saying they should be killed or their houses of worship burned down (which is what some people do), just that they should be called out on it. Is that unreasonable thing to ask?

Yes. You are assigning collective blame. And it's bullshit, regardless of whether you want people killed or mosques burned down or not.

It is your belief that religion alone is responsible for this, and your belief that the community in general fosters it. That does not make it so, and does not mean that rational people will agree with you, regardless of how much time you spend on internet message boards stewing over it.

If your idiotic religion is causing people to periodically go shoot other people because of cartoons, is it ok for you to go on "living your life" as if it's not your concern?

Yes, people who have done nothing wrong should go on living their lives even when others have done something wrong.

That this is such a difficult concept for you to understand is disconcerting.

The problem is this: those guys are beyond our sphere of influence. A preacher who wants division between his flock and whatever he considers to be heretics or outsiders, is not concerned with challenges coming from said heretics. On the contrary, that's what he thrives on. The people who are in our sphere of influence are the folks who have something to share with us, the so called moderates.

"So-called moderates." Careful, your true colors are starting to show.

They share our culture by watching the same news, reading the same newspapers, speaking the same language, goign to the same grocery stores, working in same companies, having their kids in the same schools, and frequenting in the same discussion forums and engaging with the wider society.

You mean like normal, law-abiding citizens? What a concept.

They in turn have some influence within their communities.

Too bad you haven't presented any evidence that the community itself is the problem here. Just your own assertions.

Sure they might feel distressed because there is a conflict between what they think is moral (don't kill people!), and what their religion tells them to think (cartoons are bad!), but that doesn't mean that they should resolve this conflict by just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem.

Who the fuck decided it was their job to "resolve" it in the first place?

Everything you say circles back to this nonsensical idea that the community bears responsibility when an individual commits a crime -- at least when it's a Muslim. And it's still going to be bullshit, no matter how many times you attempt to reframe it.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. You are assigning collective blame. And it's bullshit, regardless of whether you want people killed or mosques burned down or not.

It is your belief that religion alone is responsible for this, and your belief that the community in general fosters it.

Yup, except that religion does not have to be alone responsible.

It's a deluson to think people exist in vacuum and are not affected by the communities they reside in. Did a random group of Germans, just out of the blue start rounding up Jews, Gypsies, gays and other undesirables in camps and gas them to death, in a way that was totally unrelated to what German people in general believed at the time? And after world war two, was it just a conincidence that it has not happened again, that Nazi party got a bad reputation, unrelated to any shaming or ostracization of the holocaust, which you probably think was just unfairly putting the blame of Nazi atrocities on average Germans who just wanted to go on with their lives?

Or to use a less Godwinesque example, did the civil rights act of 1964 appear out of thin air when the white folks in power, just out of an inexplicable impulse decided to enact such a law out of the goodness of their hearts? Was the white majority up until that point totally blameless because they just wanted to go on with their own lives and it would have been totally inappropriate to call on them to consider that maybe they had a problem?

No man is an island. If one identifies with a cause or a religion or a community that is constant source of things that one finds appalling on a personal moral level, it's always a cause for self-reflection.

If your idiotic religion is causing people to periodically go shoot other people because of cartoons, is it ok for you to go on "living your life" as if it's not your concern?

Yes, people who have done nothing wrong should go on living their lives even when others have done something wrong.

That this is such a difficult concept for you to understand is disconcerting.

What I find disconcerting is your insistence that doing nothing and looking the other way when evil prevails is not "doing something wrong".

The problem is this: those guys are beyond our sphere of influence. A preacher who wants division between his flock and whatever he considers to be heretics or outsiders, is not concerned with challenges coming from said heretics. On the contrary, that's what he thrives on. The people who are in our sphere of influence are the folks who have something to share with us, the so called moderates.

"So-called moderates." Careful, your true colors are starting to show.

They share our culture by watching the same news, reading the same newspapers, speaking the same language, goign to the same grocery stores, working in same companies, having their kids in the same schools, and frequenting in the same discussion forums and engaging with the wider society.

You mean like normal, law-abiding citizens? What a concept.

They in turn have some influence within their communities.

Too bad you haven't presented any evidence that the community itself is the problem here. Just your own assertions.

Sure they might feel distressed because there is a conflict between what they think is moral (don't kill people!), and what their religion tells them to think (cartoons are bad!), but that doesn't mean that they should resolve this conflict by just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem.

Who the fuck decided it was their job to "resolve" it in the first place?

Who else can solve your moral conflicts, than you? I would love to be able to solve the cognitive dissonance of muslims with snap of my fingers: they should just all become atheists. Problem solved! But unfortunately I don't have godlike powers to alter people's minds, all I can do is persuade indirectly.

I have no moral conflict with condemning Charlie Hebdo shooting because I support the right to satire and freedom of speech, and I don't identify at all with the mindset of the shooters. I don't have a moral conflict with condemning a person who bombs an abortion clinic for much of the same reasons. But if, say, the company I work for is engaged in destroying rainforests or building weapons for the government that are killing people, I might have an issue with that. Or if people from the political party I support are engaged in inflaming class or racial divisions and giving a cover for extremists among their midst to commit vandalism or acts of terror. And so on.

Everything you say circles back to this nonsensical idea that the community bears responsibility when an individual commits a crime -- at least when it's a Muslim. And it's still going to be bullshit, no matter how many times you attempt to reframe it.

What's bullshit is your insistence that communities (and ideologies, religions, ...) have no impact whatsoever on what people believe or how they behave. Or that those beliefs and behaviours are unchangeable.

 

[Warpoet]

Yup, except that religion does not have to be alone responsible.

And in point of fact, is not, since the vast majority of Muslims are not killing anyone, or in any way involved in this sort of behavior.

Which is why your relentless attempts at blaming them en masse have and continue to fail.

It's a deluson to think people exist in vacuum and are not affected by the communities they reside in.

Good thing that's not what anyone is saying.

Did a random group of Germans,

here we go

just out of the blue start rounding up Jews, Gypsies, gays and other undesirables in camps and gas them to death, in a way that was totally unrelated to what German people in general believed at the time? And after world war two, was it just a conincidence that it has not happened again, that Nazi party got a bad reputation, unrelated to any shaming or ostracization of the holocaust, which you probably think was just unfairly putting the blame of Nazi atrocities on average Germans who just wanted to go on with their lives?

Muslims = Nazis.

Didn't take long.

Or to use a less Godwinesque example, did the civil rights act of 1964 appear out of thin air when the white folks in power, just out of an inexplicable impulse decided to enact such a law out of the goodness of their hearts? Was the white majority up until that point totally blameless because they just wanted to go on with their own lives and it would have been totally inappropriate to call on them to consider that maybe they had a problem?

What the fuck are you even talking about? For one, I shouldn't need to explain the difference between laws/institutions and average people. And if I need to explain to you the difference between the situation of white southerners in the 1960s and European Muslims, you're a lost cause.

No man is an island. If one identifies with a cause or a religion or a community that is constant source of things that one finds appalling on a personal moral level, it's always a cause for self-reflection.

What I find disconcerting is your insistence that doing nothing and looking the other way when evil prevails is not "doing something wrong".

You're really struggling.

"Cause" or "community" are words that can be thrown around and redefined as people like. They're certainly not limited to Muslims.

If we follow this absurd logic, the non-Muslims whom the shooters inevitably interacted with throughout their lives have far more cause for "self-reflection" than a Muslim delivery man living on the other side of the country. Oh, and I guess African-Americans and Latinos who happen to live in crime-ridden communities need to "reflect" every time someone there commits a crime, and are doing something wrong if they don't.

Fucking silly. You are still trying to argue that Muslims who have no contact or even knowledge of the people who commit these crimes bear responsibility, and you're still wrong.

Who else can solve your moral conflicts, than you?

It isn't their moral conflict, and your insistence to the contrary is rooted in your own ignorance, not reason.

I would love to be able to solve the cognitive dissonance of muslims with snap of my fingers: they should just all become atheists. Problem solved! But unfortunately I don't have godlike powers to alter people's minds, all I can do is persuade indirectly.

You certainly won't succeed by blaming law-abiding citizens for crimes they have not committed.

When you have some actual evidence, or sound logic to suggest that ordinary Muslims from all walks of life are culpable for these crimes any more than society in general is, come back.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If most Muslims were like this guy the world would be a better place: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html

Yup. We need more of this kind of thing.

Unfortunately, though, the radicalizers claim these guys aren't real Muslims, don't listen to them.

 

[TSwizzle]

If most Muslims were like this guy the world would be a better place: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html

I wonder what the reaction would have been if Nigel Farage had said such a thing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What specifically should be done?

Stonings?
beheadings?
forced consumption of Gogurt?

What?

What would satisfy you?

How about preventing or stopping future terrorist attacks?

Which could be happening all the time and you wouldn't know because there is no evidence of things that don't happen.

Like I said, the easy solution is for muslism to just resign from their dumbass religion.

And what do you offer them in return? And why should they listen to you or me or anyone else who refers to the thing that shapes their world as dumbass?

If they don't want to do that, then it's up to them to figure out some other way to stop the terrorists. I am not part of their tribe, so I can only offer general advice.

So you should probably change the world insode your own tribe. Perfect your tribe and you can then perfect the other guy's

 

[Warpoet]

Which could be happening all the time and you wouldn't know because there is no evidence of things that don't happen.

But there is evidence that it happens. In the U.S. at least, Muslims are the single largest source of tips that lead to foiling plots.

But that's not good enough for people like Jayjay; until Hassan the delivery man and Fatima the grocery clerk take time out of their busy schedules of working and raising their families to track down potential terrorists they don't even know about and force every radical Imam to alter his sermon, or renounce Islam altogether, they're no better than the Germans who sat idly by and allowed the Nazis to murder millions.

This is the "logic" that passes for reasonable discourse about Islam whenever some fucknut starts killing people.

 

[braces_for_impact]

While I realize that some wish to remind others not to paint with too broad a brush, and wish to deter racism, which is a laudable goal, I can't help but think that knee-jerking to the defense that "only some do that" is rather patronizing. We don't accept this as an excuse for anyone else's bad behavior.

Originally posted by Warpoet

But there is evidence that it happens. In the U.S. at least, Muslims are the single largest source of tips that lead to foiling plots.

But that's not good enough for people like Jayjay; until Hassan the delivery man and Fatima the grocery clerk take time out of their busy schedules of working and raising their families to track down potential terrorists they don't even know about and force every radical Imam to alter his sermon, or renounce Islam altogether, they're no better than the Germans who sat idly by and allowed the Nazis to murder millions.

This is the "logic" that passes for reasonable discourse about Islam whenever some fucknut starts killing people.

You're right. It's not good enough. There has to be a change, and since Muslims have the most influence among other Muslims, they have to do it. I'm glad to see moderate Islamic religious attitudes are beginning to gain some more traction. I know there has been a small vocal minority that speaks out against acts like what took place in Paris. It seems these vocal moderates are increasing in number, and that's good. I want to see this trend continue.

Beliefs translate into action, and different beliefs can influence different actions to cause either benign, neutral or harmful actions in some people that follow those ideas. That, whether some wish to admit it or not, is the reality we live in. As is often pointed out (and was earlier in this thread and ignored) , polling has revealed very substantial attitudes within the arena of Muslim ideas. Large portions of people support rather harmful actions, even if they don't commit those actions themselves. This is obviously no deterrent to those actions taking place.

Here's an analogy. I daresay if we were to poll white supremacist groups we would find a similar situation. White supremacy ideology tends to breed ideas that are harmful to society, and dare I say we might find that violence against minorities by those that hold to such an ideology is higher than those who do not? If we were to confront KKK members with such information, would we let them off the hook when they reply that only a minority of white supremacists actually go on to commit violence? While we should not automatically punish a club member for something someone else did, we may view them in a negative light for merely being a member. Those that were members and have seen the light are in a unique position to help change attitudes within such an organization.

I view current events with Catholics the same way. For the life of me, knowing what we now know, how anyone can continue to call themselves a catholic, support the church, tithe them their money and come to their defense is beyond me. You may have not raped kids yourself, nor support child rape in principle, and sure a minority of priests committed these acts, but the organization has to change. We non-Catholics can create outside pressure, but it's really the Catholics that need to step up and make changes within their own organization. To be sure, we've had a vocal minority of Catholics challenging the system, but there's still much more that could be done.

 

[Warpoet]

While I realize that some wish to remind others not to paint with too broad a brush, and wish to deter racism, which is a laudable goal, I can't help but think that knee-jerking to the defense that "only some do that" is rather patronizing. We don't accept this as an excuse for anyone else's bad behavior.

Except the "bad behavior" on the part of ordinary Muslims is an offense that exists only in your head, and in those of others who assign collective blame.

You're right. It's not good enough.

Why? Because you say so?

There has to be a change, and since Muslims have the most influence among other Muslims, they have to do it.

By this logic, blacks and latinos who live in crime-ridden communities are collectively responsible for violence there, and are doing something wrong by trying to live their lives like ordinary people.

Beliefs translate into action, and different beliefs can influence different actions to cause either benign, neutral or harmful actions in some people that follow those ideas. That, whether some wish to admit it or not, is the reality we live in. As is often pointed out (and was earlier in this thread and ignored) , polling has revealed very substantial attitudes within the arena of Muslim ideas.

The polling was not ignored. It simply doesn't support the idea that the majority of the world's Muslims think mass murder against journalists and cartoonists is OK, which is what some people here want us to believe.

Large portions of people support rather harmful actions, even if they don't commit those actions themselves. This is obviously no deterrent to those actions taking place.

See above. You are conflating issues.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that what these polls say have any effect on whether or not people such as those who carried out these attacks will turn to violence.

Which is why your argument does not stack up to scrutiny.

Here's an analogy. I daresay if we were to poll white supremacist groups we would find a similar situation. White supremacy ideology tends to breed ideas that are harmful to society, and dare I say we might find that violence against minorities by those that hold to such an ideology is higher than those who do not? If we were to confront KKK members with such information, would we let them off the hook when they reply that only a minority of white supremacists actually go on to commit violence? While we should not automatically punish a club member for something someone else did, we may view them in a negative light for merely being a member. Those that were members and have seen the light are in a unique position to help change attitudes within such an organization.

I view current events with Catholics the same way. For the life of me, knowing what we now know, how anyone can continue to call themselves a catholic, support the church, tithe them their money and come to their defense is beyond me. You may have not raped kids yourself, nor support child rape in principle, and sure a minority of priests committed these acts, but the organization has to change. We non-Catholics can create outside pressure, but it's really the Catholics that need to step up and make changes within their own organization. To be sure, we've had a vocal minority of Catholics challenging the system, but there's still much more that could be done.

Both analogies are ludicrous. White supremacists are a suitable analogue for all the Muslims in the world?

Why don't you just go ahead and compare them to Nazis, like countless other hysterical posters have? It's about as rational an analogy.

Institutional identity is a better basis for holding an entire group accountable. But Islam does not have a centralized institutional backbone the way Catholicism does. And even if it did, the people who carry out these attacks would likely not be originating from there. They usually either act independently, or are part of fringe groups far removed from the lives of mainstream Muslims.

But you and others here insist that ordinary Muslims leading ordinary lives must be the ones to use their "influence" to stop them, even though that influence is largely just a product of your imagination. And that's hysterical bullshit driven by an emotional response to a tragedy, not reason.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Didn't Ann Coulter cut to the chase on this? We need to go over there and convert them.
The End.

 

[dismal]

We're making progress.

No, you are making progress. You have your silly strawman almost whooped.

A few more attempts at listening to arguments people are actually making should do it.

 

[Warpoet]

No, you are making progress. You have your silly strawman almost whooped.

A few more attempts at listening to arguments people are actually making should do it.

You might score some points with smartass remarks like this if posters were not doing exactly what I've said they are: blaming Muslims who have done nothing wrong by way of crappy reasoning, bullshit analogies and double standards.

But they have, and you won't.