It's not about terrorists, it's about theocracy

[Riverwolf]

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by a heathen government. Do you have an example?

At this time, no, since Heathenry (with a capital H) is a new religion, less than a century old and almost entirely comprising of First Generation Heathens (that is to say, there aren't very many children being raised as Heathens.) I have to deal solely in hypotheticals, as a result.

For example:

Historically, Germanic-speaking tribes were generally divided into three social classes: Thralls, Churls, and Earls. Respectively, slaves/servants, "freemen", and nobles. While there was some theoretical movement between these three classes, considering the far-right tendencies of many Heathens, I would not be surprised if a Heathen government implemented this to behave more like the caste system of India.

As another exmaple, let's consider if a Heathen equivalent of Daesh showed up. I would expect a lot of their rhetoric to distort notions such as weregild and inhereted luck, to raid and destroy churches as "revenge" for some of the things some Christians did a thousand years ago (such as the Felling of Thor's Oak), and if they attained political power, might even outlaw Christianity and all Christian imagery and media. Which would be bad for me, because one of my most important Yule traditions is to watch the Patrick Stewart version of A Christmas Carol.

Yes I find this a bit disconcerting to say the least. US may not want to institute sharia law, one because of the constitution kinda being against that sort of thing but some Christians(some states even) would rather rewrite the constitution to allow something similar to let "God", or the bible rather, into the government.

As someone who is neither Christian nor Muslim, I see no significant difference in either.

 

[Pastek]

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Doesn't mean anything.

Still 500 millions of people weren't interviewed, it's just a poll supposed to be representative.
So it's not 500 millions who believe this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes I find this a bit disconcerting to say the least. US may not want to institute sharia law, one because of the constitution kinda being against that sort of thing but some Christians(some states even) would rather rewrite the constitution to allow something similar to let "God", or the bible rather, into the government.

Exactly. I can't even buy a bottle of alcohol to cook with on a Sunday because of religious laws. Laws that banned homosexuality were religious based. We even had (I'm not aware of any remaining laws that are still enforced) religious-based laws against unmarried couples living together. The church is still fighting against same-sex marriage, they are fighting against transsexual rights, they are fighting against both reproductive and abortion rights, they are fighting for prayer in public school, they have even recently fought for a day to promote and encourage Americans to read the Bible. They don't want Sharia law, but they vote to have Biblical law mandated, and they get their way far too often.

 

[FearGod]

Doesn't mean anything.

Still 500 millions of people weren't interviewed, it's just a poll supposed to be representative.
So it's not 500 millions who believe this.

It's overestimated.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doesn't mean anything.

Still 500 millions of people weren't interviewed, it's just a poll supposed to be representative.
So it's not 500 millions who believe this.

And not to mention that they want Sharia law much in the same way that many Christians want Biblical law, but something that is frequently overlooked is that those Muslims who want Sharia law do not agree exactly what all the entails and should cover, much like how many Christians who want Biblical law have no general consensus as the what exactly that should manifest as.

 

[Debater Slayer]

While I'm not sure about that 500 million figure, I find the brand of moral and cultural relativism through which people give theocracy such a free pass from strong criticism under the banner of "tolerance" and "diversity" to be profoundly dangerous. As long as secularism caves in to the conservative brand of moral objectivism out of a perceived need to remain morally relativistic, it will probably fail to counter the harms of theocracy effectively or assertively.

 

[Acim]

It strikes me that in thread after thread people bring up Islamic terrorism, and then others respond with various reasons why terrorism is a bad indicator of Islam.

From my perspective, terrorism is a bit of a red herring, a distraction. What bothers me about Islam is that there are about 500 million Muslims in the world (maybe more), who think that we all ought to be governed by theocracy.

I think theocracies are mostly horrible, and are in direct conflict with secularism and humanism. While secularism isn't perfect, I think it's far better than theocracy.

So, who wants to live in a theocratic state? That's what I think the debate should be about.

I guess it would depend on the theocracy. Of the major religions I'm familiar with, probably none of them. At the same time, it's challenging for me to look at secularism and humanism and not see the basis or commonality they share with orthodox religions. Like the idea that punishment is fully deserved / justified when a wrong occurs. I'm not claiming I have surefire way around that which no one would be skeptical of, but am saying that seems pretty much a fundamental component of governing that doesn't seem to matter who is ruling.

And I think it relates to why terrorism / violence makes (relative) sense. I agree it's a distraction, but it gains attention. Fear of violence as retribution does tend to keep people in check. While simultaneously having some believe that more violence is a plausible solution. Further perpetuating the understanding (I'd say myth) that punishing wrong doers will only help our freedom loving side. Yet observably, even when not battling foreign regimes for semblance of sovereignty, there are internal struggles (galore) that are essentially up to the same thing, seeing violence as a means to an end. Never quite clear on what that end actually looks like.

 

[YmirGF]

While I'm not sure about that 500 million figure, I find the brand of moral and cultural relativism through which people give theocracy such a free pass from strong criticism under the banner of "tolerance" and "diversity" to be profoundly dangerous. As long as secularism caves in to the conservative brand of moral objectivism out of a perceived need to remain morally relativistic, it will probably fail to counter the harms of theocracy effectively or assertively.

This is probably one of the most intelligent comments in the thread thus far. Witness President Obama's veritable fawning over President Morsi when he was elected in Egypt. Even months later, the Obama administration was feeling warm and huggy towards the Muslim Brotherhood at the same time General Sisi was lining up the cross-hairs on them. People prefer to see their vision of things rather than reality itself.

 

[idav]

While I'm not sure about that 500 million figure, I find the brand of moral and cultural relativism through which people give theocracy such a free pass from strong criticism under the banner of "tolerance" and "diversity" to be profoundly dangerous. As long as secularism caves in to the conservative brand of moral objectivism out of a perceived need to remain morally relativistic, it will probably fail to counter the harms of theocracy effectively or assertively.

Ouch man, way to put everyone in check. Whose side are you on anyway, lol.

 

[idav]

And not to mention that they want Sharia law much in the same way that many Christians want Biblical law, but something that is frequently overlooked is that those Muslims who want Sharia law do not agree exactly what all the entails and should cover, much like how many Christians who want Biblical law have no general consensus as the what exactly that should manifest as.

This is a really decent point.

 

[Augustus]

What bothers me about Islam is that there are about 500 million Muslims in the world (maybe more), who think that we all ought to be governed by theocracy.

Strangely enough that number you cite includes tens of millions of Muslims who actually voted not to be ruled by a theocracy...

This is the problem with polls,especially those regarding very complex and nuanced issues that are treated in a reductionist manner.

 

[YmirGF]

Strangely enough that number you cite includes tens of millions of Muslims who actually voted not to be ruled by a theocracy...

This is the problem with polls,especially those regarding very complex and nuanced issues that are treated in a reductionist manner.

What occurred to me is what that same poll says about the estimated 1.1 billion Muslims who do NOT want to live under Sharia law. Now that is an interesting idea. I'm sure they have good reasons too.

 

[Mindmaster]

*** first paragraph redacted by the RF staff ***

Let's think back to the pre-Age of Enlightenment period where church authorities were constantly persecuting progressive thinkers and even artists for engaging with topics in too libertine of a manner. They were jailed, tortured, maimed, or killed. Yes, I'll take a pass on Islams version of the same thing because I'm not stupid enough to think it is any different, it is a monoculture -- nothing else is allowed to exist and if it took over the whole of humanity would be thrown back about seven-hundred years as far as tolerance, and thought.

The only thing that has even allowed Islam to make it this far is that more progressive cultures surround it and they are literally forced to adapt. So no, I have no interest in sympathizing with Islam any more than I would for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. It's all the same to me...

 

[idav]

I don't know about anyone else but I can't imagine sport illustrated swimsuit editions would be the same under any theocracy. That kinda stuff has come along way in our secular society since the more conservative days. Mind you I can't post anything to show evidence here cause its a rule violation lol, but I'm sure people get the idea.

 

[Augustus]

What occurred to me is what that same poll says about the estimated 1.1 billion Muslims who do NOT want to live under Sharia law. Now that is an interesting idea. I'm sure they have good reasons too.

What I found interesting was the poll says 77% of Indonesian Muslims want to live under sharia.

70% of Indonesians vote for secular political parties though.

Tl;Dr Superficial polls about "sharia" are not very revealing.

 

[YmirGF]

What I found interesting was the poll says 77% of Indonesian Muslims want to live under sharia.

70% of Indonesians vote for secular political parties though.

Tl;Dr Superficial polls about "sharia" are not very revealing.

That's part of the problem with stats, you can get them to say almost anything you want. Just massage the data a certain way, bake for 3 minutes and voila, instant facts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is probably one of the most intelligent comments in the thread thus far. Witness President Obama's veritable fawning over President Morsi when he was elected in Egypt. Even months later, the Obama administration was feeling warm and huggy towards the Muslim Brotherhood at the same time General Sisi was lining up the cross-hairs on them. People prefer to see their vision of things rather than reality itself.

I think the fact that the U.S. government has so consistently kowtowed to the fascist theocracy of Saudi Arabia says pretty much all that one needs to know about the level of servility and concession the U.S. government is willing to go to in order to preserve relations with its "allies."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are you really arguing that Muslims don't generally want to subjugate themselves to sharia law? I mean I wouldn't blame them but is this really the case?

Sharia is the same as Jews abiding by Talmudic precepts or Catholics and canon law. All the world religions have laws or rulings about how their practitioners are supposed to live and conduct their affairs. I wish people would stop misrepresenting what sharia is.

 

[Godobeyer]

It strikes me that in thread after thread people bring up Islamic terrorism, and then others respond with various reasons why terrorism is a bad indicator of Islam.

From my perspective, terrorism is a bit of a red herring, a distraction. What bothers me about Islam is that there are about 500 million Muslims in the world (maybe more), who think that we all ought to be governed by theocracy.

I think theocracies are mostly horrible, and are in direct conflict with secularism and humanism. While secularism isn't perfect, I think it's far better than theocracy.

So, who wants to live in a theocratic state? That's what I think the debate should be about.

I believe you wrong , terrorism at most of time is individual and had no religion.

I am talking about my country ,believe or not , I put my trust in religious Muslims more than seculars Muslims,despite I consider my self as secular bit.

because religious Muslims mostly are faithful and trustfull and doing good deed,and avoid doing bad deeds.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ouch man, way to put everyone in check. Whose side are you on anyway, lol.

Hmm... interesting question, because I've been thinking about the answer for a good while myself.

I don't identify as a conservative. That's for certain. I also haven't identified as a liberal in... I don't remember exactly how long, but it wasn't a short time ago either.

Many—possibly most—self-identified "liberals" in Egypt are neither really liberal nor even moderate compared to the standards of actually secular countries. Most of them oppose LGBT rights, for example. When a self-identified liberal, a TV host, says, "Of course I don't advocate legalizing same-sex marriage or incest," you know the label he has adopted for himself doesn't mean much at that point.

As far as liberalism goes in many Western countries (including the U.S.), I also see an alarming trend in it to be accepting of harmful and, in my opinion, conspicuously toxic ideologies and beliefs in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity." Just look at how a lot of far-left liberals attack strong criticism of Islam and certain trends and aspects of the Muslim world as "Islamophobia." Faisal Saeed al-Mutar put it really well: he called that trend the "regressive left." I know he didn't come up with that term, but the way he used it pretty much summed up how I feel about this issue of indiscriminate acceptance and sometimes even defense of harmful beliefs by many liberals.

So I identify as neither a conservative nor a liberal in the most common usages of those terms. I find myself most comfortable adopting the label "secularist." It describes my position accurately while at the same time avoiding associating myself with the problematic aspects I see in what is branded as "liberalism" both in my country and in some other countries. More precisely, some parts of my views square with some common conservative beliefs, like moral objectivism and reduced emphasis on the need to be "politically correct" compared to liberalism when criticizing certain things (like other cultures), and others square with common liberal beliefs, like gender equality, support for LGBT rights, and religious pluralism (but not universalism in the sense of accepting all religions as equally valid or respectable), among other things.

That was kinda long. Sorry about that. I just wasn't sure how to answer the question adequately while being brief. Couldn't have my cake and eat it too, I guess.