Canada anti-islamophobia motion M103

[Willamena]

I don't. but in this case one of the interviewed Muslims claimed that Islam is about "peace and love". Well there is a LOT of evidence that's counter to that claim. That's why I called it disingenuous.

How they practice it is what it is about, same as for any religion.

How to reform it is the billion dollar question. Although step 1 would be to acknowledge that there is a problem. Why reform it? Because it's a main contributor to massive pain and suffering around the world. And to be a Muslim and be ignorant of that fact, especially if you live in a western society, is to have your head in the sand.

A religion is nothing more than the people practicing it. To suggest they should "reform" it is to suggest that they should reform how everyone practices it. That's not a viable, or even possible, solution.

 

[icehorse]

@Augustus @Willamena

Implicit in both of your arguments is the idea that there is a plausible way to be a Muslim that's not anti-secular. There isn't.

To declare oneself as a "secular Muslim", is to be disingenuous. The claim strains credulity.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus @Willamena

Implicit in both of your arguments is the idea that there is a plausible way to be a Muslim that's not anti-secular. There isn't.

To declare oneself as a "secular Muslim", is to be disingenuous. The claim strains credulity.

Yet millions of people manage to do just this. I'll inform them that they are mistaken, or perhaps engaging in taqqiya.

 

[icehorse]

Yet millions of people manage to do just this. I'll inform them that they are mistaken, or perhaps engaging in taqqiya.

Look at recent polls in Europe. A LARGE percentage of Muslims living in Europe favor Sharia, think homosexuality and apostasy should be crimes, and so on. Not a fringe group, percentages like 30% and 50% hold these opinions. The numbers in NA are not far different.

When such a significant percentage of people want to undermine the society that has adopted them, it again - strains credulity - to call their faith "loving and peaceful".

 

[Augustus]

Look at recent polls in Europe. A LARGE percentage of Muslims living in Europe favor Sharia, think homosexuality and apostasy should be crimes, and so on. Not a fringe group, percentages like 30% and 50% hold these opinions. The numbers in NA are not far different.

When such a significant percentage of people want to undermine the society that has adopted them, it again - strains credulity - to call their faith "loving and peaceful".

You just said it wasn't possible to be a secular Muslim, and now you are saying 50-70%+ are.

 

[icehorse]

You just said it wasn't possible to be a secular Muslim, and now you are saying 50-70%+ are.

we're nit-picking a bit, but fair enough. I said it wasn't "plausible", that it strained credulity, and I stand by that. I think that "secular Muslims" really do a disservice to themselves, their families, and the society they live in. If they had a new secular denomination, that would go a LONG way towards improving the situation. But as it stands they MUST defend two ideas:

- the Quran is perfect, timeless, blah, blah
- Muhammad is the perfect role model...

Those two claims are anti-secular by definition. At best, scrutinizing a "secular Muslim's" beliefs will be an uncomfortable activity.

Let me ask you this, can you point to an example on this forum of a secular Muslim admitting to this cognitive dissonance? I can't, and I've looked. This is one reason why I'll stick by my claim that to call Islam "loving and peaceful" is disingenuous.

 

[Augustus]

we're nit-picking a bit, but fair enough. I said it wasn't "plausible", that it strained credulity, and I stand by that. I think that "secular Muslims" really do a disservice to themselves, their families, and the society they live in. If they had a new secular denomination, that would go a LONG way towards improving the situation.

As a rule, don't expect others to jump through the hoops you have arbitrarily made for them.

Those two claims are anti-secular by definition. At best, scrutinizing a "secular Muslim's" beliefs will be an uncomfortable activity.

I personally know hundreds of people for who it is not uncomfortable in the slightest.

Not that it does any good, but I'll tell you again, stop treating Islam as a single religion. Everything become very easy to understand once you do this.

Let me ask you this, can you point to an example on this forum of a secular Muslim admitting to this cognitive dissonance? I can't, and I've looked. This is one reason why I'll stick by my claim that to call Islam "loving and peaceful" is disingenuous.

People don't live with cognitive dissonance, they avoid it or resolve it. You should really be asking yourself why don't these people have any CD?

Why do you think takfiri Wahabbis hate "moderate Muslims" and Shia so much? Because they are a direct challenge to their claim to knowledge of absolute truth and a single unambiguous tradition.

You pretty much adopt the Wahabbi perspective and 'takfir' anyone who doesn't live up to your preconception about what Islam 'should be'.

Instead of trying to determine what you think normative Islam should be, you'd be better off looking at the positive representation of what the various forms of Islam actually are.

You like your polls, those alone should tell you not to treat it as a single religion.

 

[Willamena]

@Augustus @Willamena

Implicit in both of your arguments is the idea that there is a plausible way to be a Muslim that's not anti-secular. There isn't.

To declare oneself as a "secular Muslim", is to be disingenuous. The claim strains credulity.

Let me make it explicit: a religious person can behave in a secular manner, nothing prevents that. To declare oneself a "secular Muslim" is simply to be a Canadian.

 

[Willamena]

we're nit-picking a bit, but fair enough. I said it wasn't "plausible", that it strained credulity, and I stand by that. I think that "secular Muslims" really do a disservice to themselves, their families, and the society they live in. If they had a new secular denomination, that would go a LONG way towards improving the situation. But as it stands they MUST defend two ideas:

- the Quran is perfect, timeless, blah, blah
- Muhammad is the perfect role model...

Those two claims are anti-secular by definition. At best, scrutinizing a "secular Muslim's" beliefs will be an uncomfortable activity.

Let me ask you this, can you point to an example on this forum of a secular Muslim admitting to this cognitive dissonance? I can't, and I've looked. This is one reason why I'll stick by my claim that to call Islam "loving and peaceful" is disingenuous.

"Secular" is not about beliefs, but about behaviors. A secular government is one who treats its citizens equally regardless of religion. A secular Muslim is a Muslim who treats people the same regardless of whether they share the religion or not.

I'm a secular atheist. I work with Muslims, but we treat each other in a manner that has nothing to do with their religion or my lack thereof.

 

[icehorse]

Let me make it explicit: a religious person can behave in a secular manner, nothing prevents that. To declare oneself a "secular Muslim" is simply to be a Canadian.

AND, it is to be in conflict with the ideology's basic tenets. That's all fine and good, but we're lying to say otherwise.

 

[icehorse]

"Secular" is not about beliefs, but about behaviors. A secular government is one who treats its citizens equally regardless of religion. A secular Muslim is a Muslim who treats people the same regardless of whether they share the religion or not.

I'm a secular atheist. I work with Muslims, but we treat each other in a manner that has nothing to do with their religion or my lack thereof.

I disagree with your first claim. A secularist believes in the separation of church and state. A secularist believes in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. These believes are in stark contrast to what Islam teaches.

 

[Yerda]

Look at recent polls in Europe. A LARGE percentage of Muslims living in Europe favor Sharia, think homosexuality and apostasy should be crimes, and so on. Not a fringe group, percentages like 30% and 50% hold these opinions.

If these numbers are accurate then this really is a problem. And it has to be addressed. It seems unlikely to me that we start to address it by telling Muslims that they can't be secular and that the faith they hold can't be loving and peaceful.

I see why people can get annoyed about the use of the term Islamophobia. It's often used in a vague manner and the critics of Islam, as a set of ideas, are often tarred unfairly with a name that suggests they are bigots.
Having said that it's not like there aren't a lot of people out their who simply don't like Muslims. Don't want Muslim immigrants in their country. Don't want Muslim families living on their streets. We should be able to question a person's committment to tolerance (i.e. their own set of ideas) when they have illiberal views of people who are Muslim.

 

[icehorse]

If these numbers are accurate then this really is a problem. And it has to be addressed. It seems unlikely to me that we start to address it by telling Muslims that they can't be secular and that the faith they hold can't be loving and peaceful.

If a normal, unbiased, non-Muslim reads the Quran, the most reasonable conclusion would be that it is an intolerant ideology. I suspect that many Muslims living in the West haven't read their own darned book. If they have, then they are putting a HUGE burden on their neighbors by claiming that they follow the Quran AND they are peaceful. Those two claims together strain credulity.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree with your first claim. A secularist believes in the separation of church and state. A secularist believes in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. These believes are in stark contrast to what Islam teaches.

Secular, as its generally used, is "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: Contrasted with sacred."

The separation of Church and State is something that could certainly be considered sacred. I think it's a unworkable interpretation to say that the secular is that.

 

[icehorse]

Secular, as its generally used, is "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: Contrasted with sacred."

The separation of Church and State is something that could certainly be considered sacred. I think it's a unworkable interpretation to say that the secular is that.

I found the definition you're using. But it strikes me that in this forum "secular" is generally considered to mean "a society that defends the separation of church and state". That's certainly what I meant when I said secularist - one who defends the separation of church and state.

 

[UpperLimits]

I don't know you, so I couldn't say.

That's nice to know.

Well, early results are in and it looks like not much will be changing. I was hopeful, but it looks like the media was actually right for a change when they predicted "no change" either. All the ridings were in traditional strongholds of their respective parties. But I think the real interesting part will be in the actual numbers. These tend to tell the truth about what people are thinking and even small changes can be significant.

Well, final results are in.

No change in ridings. Everyone keeps the ridings they went in with.

NDP down. Liberals WAY down. Conservatives up everywhere. Just what I expected to see. I'm happy with the results.

 

[Willamena]

I found the definition you're using. But it strikes me that in this forum "secular" is generally considered to mean "a society that defends the separation of church and state". That's certainly what I meant when I said secularist - one who defends the separation of church and state.

The separation of Church and State is an ideal result of secularism, there can be no doubt, but it's not the meat and bones of it. At its heart is its value as a philosophical theory that recognizes the diversity of beliefs, and behaves accordingly.

 

[Willamena]

Well, final results are in.

No change in ridings. Everyone keeps the ridings they went in with.

NDP down. Liberals WAY down. Conservatives up everywhere. Just what I expected to see. I'm happy with the results.

Well done. Did we learn anything?

 

[UpperLimits]

Well done. Did we learn anything?

Did you read?

"NDP down. Liberals WAY down. Conservatives up everywhere."

Naturally, an extra win would have been nice, but all in all, this is pretty much what I expected.

You were perhaps thinking I'd be out protesting and burning cars in the street because my desired party didn't win? I know that many people are rather short sighted and are only concerned with the immediate results (ie their desired candidate won) but that's not necessarily the most important thing in a by-election. This shows the trends and the trend is; Things are not looking good for JT. The "natives are restless." They still trust in him - for now.... But he'd better start to perform.

Oh, by the way... did you see his budget a couple weeks back? The average middle class family is probably going to take about an extra $2,000.00 - $3,000.00 hit in their 2017 taxes. And if you think the natives are restless now - I think they're gonna be on the war path by next April.

(Ya know... When JT said he was going to "help" the middle class, I don't think anybody ever imagined that his "help" would be standing in the middle of the street and pointing the way to the front door of the welfare office...)

 

[Willamena]

You were perhaps thinking I'd be out protesting and burning cars in the street because my desired party didn't win?

Uh... no.

So, we didn't learn anything.