fast
Contributor
Awe, pretty kitty! I retract it all.
We don't need to tell the difference for there to be a difference, but sure, there's a way to tell, but perhaps not always.
-
Features
Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims?
- Thread starter chrisengland
- Start date
fast
Contributor
Well, maybe if your liberal cohorts were a little more tolerant of some fruitful bigotry, then the repercussions of this new set of begrudgingly accepted wrongs would lead to a better world for cats and animal lovers the world over. Give people like Loren, who has a special place in his heart for non-Muslim cats, the opportunity to stand up in the face of cat-hating atheists, a stand procured only through bigotry. Let's allow for the wrongs that will shape us in the right direction for a better world for all non-Muslim cats.
<no dogs were hurt in the making of this post>
arkirk
Veteran Member
I don't really understand how cats got into this, but this one is talking back! The fact remains Muslim and Christian scriptures contain advocations of violence and people who are "moderate" have to reject the more violent advocations on a person by person basis as there are no scriptures that outright deny violence in the practice of the religion. Both religions have examples in their holy books of the righteous committing atrocities on others in the righteous service of the religion. It is a matter of a practitioner of these religions setting aside some of the actual dogma of the religion, but there is little guidance except a person's conscience and the ability of a religionist to bi-conceptualize in the issue.
Your picture is wrong, that cat didn't plead, period. She was one that apparently had been abandoned and we took in, she would always address problems on her own--she would give no indication of an empty food dish, just try to get to where the bag was stored. An empty water dish and she would check every faucet in the house to see if it was dripping.
The only thing she would ever ask for was to go in or out.
PyramidHead
Contributor
I don't really have a position on Islam per se, but I don't think the content of the Koran can be ignored any more than the content of the Bible or the Torah, when the big difference between everyday and extremist is which parts they choose to emphasize. Obviously their circumstances differ, and those circumstances go a long way in dictating how they interpret the books. But most everyday Muslims will probably say they try to live in accordance with their scriptures.
If a large number of people began to profess obedience to any text, they are not exempt from criticism of that text. The prima facie assumption people have to make, without knowing every Muslim personally, is that they will take the Koran more or less seriously depending on how they want to live their lives. Where the text is problematic from a social standpoint, it makes sense to wonder about the consequences of very strong devotion to it.
Like any religion, we are talking about a group of people with grossly mistaken beliefs about the universe, some of which may compel harm to themselves and others. Nothing outwardly confirms whether a given Muslim is everyday or extremist in many cases, and there is hardly any official stance on which parts of scripture to ignore or diminish in importance, as there is in e.g. Catholicism. So it can be a black box. You just have to take it on a per-person basis.
If a large number of people began to profess obedience to any text, they are not exempt from criticism of that text. The prima facie assumption people have to make, without knowing every Muslim personally, is that they will take the Koran more or less seriously depending on how they want to live their lives. Where the text is problematic from a social standpoint, it makes sense to wonder about the consequences of very strong devotion to it.
Like any religion, we are talking about a group of people with grossly mistaken beliefs about the universe, some of which may compel harm to themselves and others. Nothing outwardly confirms whether a given Muslim is everyday or extremist in many cases, and there is hardly any official stance on which parts of scripture to ignore or diminish in importance, as there is in e.g. Catholicism. So it can be a black box. You just have to take it on a per-person basis.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
So basically Islam is like wearing pantyhose on your head. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are a bank robber, and indeed some bank robbers might not wear pantyhose on their head at all, but it also makes very little sense and makes it hard to distinguish real bank robbers from the crowd.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Wearing pantyhose on one's head is something that is primarily done by bank robbers, and rarely done by the general population. Being Muslim is not something primarily done by terrorists, and rarely done by non-terrorists. So that's not a good analogy.
DBT
Contributor
There's not much to interpret when you have a collection of verses stating that it is the duty of Muslims to kill disbelievers where ever they are found. The rational made by 'moderates' is that these were only meant for the time in which they were written. It's a rationale that does not work when applied to the so called Word of God. A Being who is said to be above whimsical changes in ethical values...''it's ok to kill unbelievers now, but I'll Change My Mind in the future.''
DBT
Contributor
It is all of these things. A dedicated culture is built around the bible, the church, the congregation, the priests and pastors who interpret scripture and preach the 'Word' and the moral values according to both the content of the book and themselves as the ''keepers of the Word of God.''
The interpretation of a book is probably more to do with the psychology of the reader than the content of the book, but nevertheless the content itself is an important factor.
Is it?
Take two groups. Give group A one book, and group B the other. Wind forward a thousand years. Measure the difference in behaviour.
-Is there a difference between the two groups?
-If so, what are the confounding factors?
So far, we've fallen at the first fence - demonstating a difference between the two groups. All we have are two groups, one of whom occasionally plants bombs by hand, and the other which plant vastly more bombs by dropping them from aircraft. And the confounding variables appear blatent, vast and numerous.
People may feel, intuitively, that the content of the book makes some difference, but there's no evidence for it.
As others have done in this thread you compare Islam to Christianity. Lets assume as a given Christianity is just as bad or even worse if you like. Now lets compare Islam to Taoism or another vastly more tolerant eastern religion and compare those histories before we claim religion has little effect.
If we were comparing Canada to Saudi Arabia you would have a point about the cultures being too different to draw conclusions about the religions influence. But not with India. India has many religions. What are the confounding variables for an Indian in India besides religion. And Islam has the bloodiest history there.
Really?
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
If there is one common thread of an extremist, it tends to be engineering.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-why-so-many-terrorists-are-engineers/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-why-so-many-terrorists-are-engineers/
All religions are about as senseless as each other, I wouldn't single Islam out this way.
The rest of it is true, though--it's very hard to distinguish the dangerous extremist from the moderate that is no threat. We are wired towards false positives on threats, even though we know the moderates are no threat we can't be sure any given Muslim is a moderate.
Sphincterboy
New member
Are these people 'Moderates'? They are doing nothing illegal. They are expressing a clear message in a peaceful demonstration.
Some people may find their message somewhat chilling.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
You don't even need to do that. Give group A one book, give group B the same book. Wind forward a thousand years and measure the difference in behavior. We've had groups with the same book killing each other over religion long enough for us to know that it's not really about the book.
Well that's confusing. I thought the narrative was that poverty caused terrorism. Head. Blown. *
*Interesting article though!
DBT
Contributor
I did not say that the book fully determines the behaviour of the reader/interpreter.
I said that it is the psychology of the reader that is indicative of how a book is interpreted.
Conversely, the information content of a book is indicative of the psychological state of the author, or authors.
The book, if influential, is a catalyst for modifying behaviour. The ideas that are contained in the book resonate with the ideas, hopes, desires of the reader.
Some may find justification for their actions because their holy book sanctions the act of killing infidels, for instance.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Which is where the issue of intelligence comes in, particularly in that you seem to be unaware of the fact that Galileo and Giordano were both Christians.
In that, I think we have a partial answer to the OP. There is a large group of intelligent people who associate Islam -- ANY form of Islam -- with extremism, and therefore live their lives blissfully unaware of the millions of Muslims in their own communities who manage to peacefully coexist without blowing up or murdering anyone.
Here you blame the people at the top of the political pyramid for widespread public ignorance. I'm curious as to why the ignorance of the public would be the fault of anyone but the public themselves.