Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

[Revoltingest]

There is no double standard. The Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims to...

Oh, you really don't understand, do you.
We'll just leave it at that.

 

[Augustus]

I realize you're going to say "IS NOT" to everything I post. I also realize you'll never actually address the details of my posts. Post 4 answered your auto-denial. I won't repeat it. I will also probably let you prattle on without engaging.

Wtf are you talking about?

You initiated the discussion by replying to my post with something that didn’t remotely address what I actually said.

I told you that you seemed to have misunderstood as your reply was irrelevant to what I said.

You still failed to grasp your misunderstanding.

So I explained it more simply.

It was still beyond you apparently.

Never mind. You don’t always have to understand everything other people are discussing.

But, please. I beg of you. Claim victory. Accept my surrender. I know you want to.

Actually, I generally find it more enjoyable if people reply with something that, at least appropriately, addresses what I said so I can have an actual discussion.

 

[Glaurung]

The distinction is pretty meaningless in all circumstances.

There is no meaningful way to differentiate a religious ideology from a non religious ideology imo.

I wouldn't go so far as to collapse any and all distinctions between the religious and the secular/political, but I accept the line is blurry and arbitrary. Islam blurs the line more than Christianity in my view due to the lack of any Sharia equivalent in Christianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

The distinction is pretty meaningless in all circumstances.

There is no meaningful way to differentiate a religious ideology from a non religious ideology imo.

They are functionally the same thing.

I may or may not agree, but it seems to me that the existence of a literal belief that the terrorist is fulfilling the wishes of the divine creator of existence itself who also happens to have an active interest in giving commands to living people is quite the significant differential.

It is a very antisocial and criminal trait, which ought not to be tolerated in movements that want acknowledgement as religions.

Most ideologies just aren't anywhere near as fanatical, as self-entitled, as presumptuous as such a so-called "religion". They do not purport to be entitled to creating their own schools and to have political protection from questioning and exposure to competing views.

It is important to acknowledge the distinction, for several very important reasons. Such as supporting very necessary questioning of whether Islam is a religion at all, and whether it even qualifies for recognition as a religious movements for purposes of legal protection, privileges and exceptions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Terrorism is terrorism.
Adding the religious component here in USA has
been quite demonizing of Muslims generally.
It causes suffering while offering no benefit.
So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

Note that when Christians have committed
terrorism here, it's been portrayed as a
separate thing from their religion, despite
it's being integral.

I'm all for changing that last part.

It would be a very good thing indeed to question whether groups such as the JW, Scientology, Westboro or our own UCKG qualify for recognition as religious movements. Both legally and by other perspectives.

Claims of religious nature are a very poor excuse for decidly antisocial (if not all-out criminal) behavior. It is way past time to firmly challenge that very bad habit.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I've known many Muslims and they weren't violent and treated me better than many Christians, no that doesn't sound fair.

Maybe we should question whether they object to, say, legal repression of ISIS/Daesh? Hamas?

Most Muslims of course are not violent. But that does not necessarily mean that Islam as a whole should remain so protected by willingness to doubt its harmful nature as a doctrine.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not when terrorism by Christians & Jews
isn't given the same treatment. I know that
many here loathe Muslims & Islam, but this
doesn't justify a double standard designed
to demonize them, & sanitize others.

The plain - very plain, for good and worse - fact of the matter is that Islam is very, very different from Judaism and Christianity in this particular matter.

Judaism and Christianity are lousy at teaching their extremists to learn better and behave better.

Islam is appallingly worse than its two sister creeds on this regard, by actively teaching to value promises of god by way of the Qur'an more than basic attitudes of true respect for human dignity and life.

Call me Islamophobic if you want. I am way beyond caring. Truth matters.

 

[Revoltingest]

The plain - very plain, for good and worse - fact of the matter is that Islam is very, very different from Judaism and Christianity in this particular matter.

Judaism and Christianity are lousy at teaching their extremists to learn better and behave better.

Islam is appallingly worse than its two sister creeds on this regard, by actively teaching to value promises of god by way of the Qur'an more than basic attitudes of true respect for human dignity and life.

Call me Islamophobic if you want. I am way beyond caring. Truth matters.

Your judgements of those religions could have been
caused by the media long using a prejudiced double
standard against Islam. And the long violent records
of Christianity (Hitler, Manifest destiny, just to name a
few), & the current use of genocide by God's Chosen
People in Israel don't elevate them above Islam.

Consider also that Islamic terrorism is often a reaction
to hideous wrongs perpetrated by western countries
governed by Christians & Jews.

Now, setting aside the competition to determine
which religion is the worst....
It is still very wrong & even dangerous to advocate
for a double standard designed to demonize Islam,
while excusing Christian & Jewish terrorism.

Note:
I'm no fan of Islam.
Just treat people fairly, eh.

 

[stevecanuck]

Oh, you really don't understand, do you.
We'll just leave it at that.

Oh, I understand perfectly. You drew a false equivalence and then claimed that said equivalence proved the existence of a double standard. Again, there is nothing in the bible that even comes close to matching the Qur'an's succinctness, specificity, and sheer visceral hatred.

Have you read the Qur'an? If not, I suggest you do. But, tell me before you do, because I can provide you with a useful glossary and a rough time-line.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I understand....

Alas, no.
So to discuss it further with you would be unproductive.

 

[stevecanuck]

Wtf are you talking about?

You initiated the discussion by replying to my post with something that didn’t remotely address what I actually said.

I told you that you seemed to have misunderstood as your reply was irrelevant to what I said.

You still failed to grasp your misunderstanding.

So I explained it more simply.

It was still beyond you apparently.

Never mind. You don’t always have to understand everything other people are discussing.

Okay, I'm willing to try again. In post 18 you said - What you did not do is offer meaningful criteria of demarcation between violent “not religious” ideologies and violent religious ideologies in general.

If by that you mean that people still end up dying, then of course it makes no difference to the dead. But, I don't think that's what you're getting at.

So, what does that leave us but the reason for the terrorism in the first place. Is that what you're trying to differentiate?

Actually, I generally find it more enjoyable if people reply with something that, at least appropriately, addresses what I said so I can have an actual discussion.

Absolutely. Let us endeavor.

 

[stevecanuck]

Alas, no.
So to discuss it further would be unproductive.

Buh bye.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your judgements of those religions could have been
caused by the media long using a prejudiced double
standard against Islam.

Sure they could.

If you were talking with someone else, that is. Or living in some other world.

Not the case here, I assure you.

Again. Frankly it has become a bit tiresome already.

And the long violent records
of Christianity (Hitler, Manifest destiny, just to name a
few), & the current use of genocide by God's Chosen
People in Israel don't elevate them above Islam.

Indeed.

Again, not the point. I am patient, but there are limits.

Consider also that Islamic terrorism is often a reaction
to hideous wrongs perpetrated by western countries
governed by Christians & Jews.

Yeah. I am aware of that line and gave it all due consideration.

Guess what? There are limits.

Now, setting aside the competition to determine
which religion is the worst....
It is still very wrong & even dangerous to advocate
for a double standard designed to demonize Islam,
while excusing Christian & Jewish terrorism.

Very true.

Unfortunately, quite besides the point too. It just doesn't matter in practice except as a well-meaning yet undeserved attempt at obfuscation or at least wishful thinking.

Note:
I'm no fan of Islam.
Just treat people fairly, eh.

That is my line, man.

 

[stevecanuck]

I wouldn't go so far as to collapse any and all distinctions between the religious and the secular/political, but I accept the line is blurry and arbitrary. Islam blurs the line more than Christianity in my view due to the lack of any Sharia equivalent in Christianity.

In the most extreme Islamic countries there is no line to blur. Their religion and their laws are 'nafs el hagga' (the same thing).

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't go so far as to collapse any and all distinctions between the religious and the secular/political, but I accept the line is blurry and arbitrary. Islam blurs the line more than Christianity in my view due to the lack of any Sharia equivalent in Christianity.

If Trump wins, I wouldn't be surprised
to see revival of the auto da fe.

 

[stevecanuck]

So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

Why would we "ditch" a label that they give themselves? We called the Nazis by the label they gave themselves, not 'people who like to wear brown'.

Remember, Hamas is an acronym for 'Islamic Resistance Movement'.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most Muslims of course are not violent. But that does not necessarily mean that Islam as a whole should remain so protected by willingness to doubt its harmful nature as a doctrine.

I see it as no different than Christianity. Yes, both books have terrible teachings and instructions, and indeed Christianity used to fuel tons of violence but they've mostly chilled out. A.d we see most Christians and Muslims have been peaceful.
And, ultimately there have even been Buddhist terrorists. So clearly this isn't an easy or clear cut topic. It's a people problem.

Maybe we should question whether they object to, say, legal repression of ISIS/Daesh? Hamas?

Yes. And there has been a lot of backlash towards them from the Ummah.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why would we "ditch" a label that they give themselves? We called the Nazis by the label they gave themselves, not 'people who like to wear brown'.

Remember, Hamas is an acronym for 'Islamic Resistance Movement'.

Actually we often don't call Nazis by what they were and even Hitler detested the socialist part of the name. It's much more accurate to refer to them as fascist, although Nazi does tell us specifically what type.
And do keep in mind it is Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. So what? Deep ecologists are radicals and extremists? Afterall, LW terrorism for a very long time was the greatest domestic threat in America and the UK.

 

[Augustus]

If by that you mean that people still end up dying, then of course it makes no difference to the dead. But, I don't think that's what you're getting at.

The point was that, while religions are often held up as being fundamentally different from “secular” belief systems, there is no real way you can differentiate them. They are functionally identical (that does not mean all ideologies are functionally identical, just that being religious or secular is not a key factor in how they influence behaviour).

There is no way to craft a definition that covers Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, neo-paganism, etc. and demarcates these from Humanism, Nazism, Marxism, nationalism, etc.

Ideologies are systems of belief that people hold and that help them differentiate right from wrong, decide what is good or desirable, explain the way they world works, (usually) connect the individual to something bigger than the self, etc.

Ideologies may be anywhere from pacifistic to extremely violent, may be dogmatic or flexible, etc.

Ideologies may be nominally “religious” or “secular”, but there is no meaningful way to demarcate what makes an ideology “religious” or what makes it “secular”.

A jihadi may think he is progressing the world to a utopian caliphate ordained by god, a Leninist may have thought they were progressing the world to a utopian communism that was the end point of history.

One ideology is “religious” the other “secular” but they share far more in common with each other than with liberal religious or secular ideologies.

What you did not do is offer meaningful criteria of demarcation between violent “not religious” ideologies and violent religious ideologies in general.

How would you differentiate a religious ideology from a secular one?

Not all religions have gods, secular ideologies can have teleologies and concepts functionally identical to divine providence, etc.

 

[Kathryn]

Terrorism is terrorism.
Adding the religious component here in USA has
been quite demonizing of Muslims generally.
It causes suffering while offering no benefit.
So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

Note that when Christians have committed
terrorism here, it's been portrayed as a
separate thing from their religion, despite
it's being integral.

Yeah, I'm such a killer. Me and all those people I go to church with. Killers all of em.