There haven't been Christian terrorist attacks as we've had Islamic terrorist attacks the last couple of years in Europe.
Sure there still are narrow-minded Christians, to put it mildly, but at least they don't hew off peoples heads if a bible is burned somewhere ffs.
Sure, looking at the last two decades will certainly convince everybody that the crusades never happened and that international islamist terrorism has always existed or that it's completely unprovoked.
You're still responsible for your own actions. I find it ridiculous to say that the only way the violence will stop is for America to stop meddling in the Middle East. What about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Assad ruled Syria? For real, I think your argument holds no ground whatsoever.
Muslims should be able to take an offensive joke towards their religion. Being offended is one of the dumbest reasons to use violence.
Emphasis is usually on America (or the western militairy forces in general) because those other countries you mention are rarely involved in the debate at all. Obviously, if you're in the room and you're doing something wrong I'm gonna argue with you and not everyone else who does the same wrong thing, because, as you said, you're responsible for your own actions. And, honestly, at this point who's to say where it all started or who has to be the first to stop. As a matter of fact, everyone should feel obligated to criticize their own side or you risk further escalation.
I think I wholly agree in that I don't have a problem with theological speculation by itself since as you say the real problem is when it gets organized in a hierarchal way where individuals gain undue power. I think that all organized religions are cults that have shed the stigma of being a cult once they become popular and tolerated enough. Although another problem is that these kinds of beliefs give people a reason to become emotionally and intellectually dependent on something, an attitude that hinders personal agency. If people can be more academic when they indulge in this stuff, as opposed to looking for a crutch, then I think it would be a perfectly fine part of society.
Theological/philosophical speculation is worth doing its just how much can we really invest ourselves into something that we really just aren't equipped to figure out? Its fun to do in that it forces to confront certain things about ourselves that we wouldn't otherwise, which is why Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are so popular, even though the personal beliefs they derived from their interesting examinations are mostly repulsive. I keep reading about how Spinoza is one of the most reasonable philosophers in terms of theological speculation so I look forward to reading him.
I guess there's always risk for theological speculation to turn into organised practices because communities love to flock around common things, especially belief. That's why they're called comm-unity-ies. And that's fine many of the times, but then some fall in love with the simplicity of that kind of life a little too much, and then there's always the risk of a state to try to represent these people, which is when shit flies south.
I know that organization is inevitable, there should be some organization where people examine each others' ideas and share experiences but what I was driving at is how hierarchy corrupts the whole thing. Thats part of what I meant by making it more academic since academics, at least more than any other profession, are judged by the strength of their arguments. Dominant schools of thought are overthrown all of the time and thats encouraged since that usually means progress. If someone dogmatically affirms one philosophy/theory they'll suffer for it because some more open minded pioneer will come along and outshine them when instead they could have been working on some better revision. Plus in regards to theological matters no one will ever really know enough to justify a hierarchy where they can issue commands. The most that an elite can do is attract the most attention to their work.
Yeah, and I think that, weirdly, classes about the different religions of the world would do more against fanaticism and regressiveness than anything else (you know, because you can't expect children in 4th grade to be academic yet and so on). I think something like that would balance things out back towards theological speculation and teach kids how to participate in the discourse within and between religions and not just follow doctrines.
There haven't been Christian terrorist attacks as we've had Islamic terrorist attacks the last couple of years in Europe.
Sure there still are narrow-minded Christians, to put it mildly, but at least they don't hew off peoples heads if a bible is burned somewhere ffs.
Sure, looking at the last two decades will certainly convince everybody that the crusades never happened and that international islamist terrorism has always existed or that it's completely unprovoked.
Your point being? That the Islamist terrorists have any good excuse for attacks? They don't, nor do the countries that still try to keep a grip on the region.
You're still responsible for your own actions. I find it ridiculous to say that the only way the violence will stop is for America to stop meddling in the Middle East. What about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Assad ruled Syria? For real, I think your argument holds no ground whatsoever.
Muslims should be able to take an offensive joke towards their religion. Being offended is one of the dumbest reasons to use violence.
Emphasis is usually on America (or the western militairy forces in general) because those other countries you mention are rarely involved in the debate at all. Obviously, if you're in the room and you're doing something wrong I'm gonna argue with you and not everyone else who does the same wrong thing, because, as you said, you're responsible for your own actions. And, honestly, at this point who's to say where it all started or who has to be the first to stop. As a matter of fact, everyone should feel obligated to criticize their own side or you risk further escalation.
They're rarely involved in debate because they choose so themselves. Russia keeps funding Assad and is using gas as well, yet they claim they don't. So go figure.
It's no longer about where it started, some thousands of years ago and people aren't going to settle with that anyway. Everyone thinks they're right and will literally stop at nothing to get what they think is theirs. I think it's terrible what has happened and keeps on happening in the Middle East but it will never sit right with me if someone argues that the terrorists actually have an excuse for their attacks. No, pointing the finger to someone else, or even a whole country is not a good argument and it certainly doesn't give one merit to blow countless of people up. You're responsible for your own actions and if you think you're right by killing as many people as possible then you're not human anymore.
You're still responsible for your own actions. I find it ridiculous to say that the only way the violence will stop is for America to stop meddling in the Middle East. What about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Assad ruled Syria? For real, I think your argument holds no ground whatsoever.
Muslims should be able to take an offensive joke towards their religion. Being offended is one of the dumbest reasons to use violence.
yes you're still in control of your own actions and of course i find any violence carried out by terrorists completely reprehensible.
What I find even more reprehensible, however, is the fact that innocent people are the ones paying for politicians' lust for war.
I'll ask this: do you actually believe America's involvement in the middle east has helped at all?
Seriously, I don't think its pure coincidence that we've seen all this displacement and rising terrorist attacks from people coming from the region since the Iraq war. But I'm interested to know your take with regards to that.
Nomis, have you seen a single person here to be excusing the actions of Islamic terrorists? People aren't trying to make up imaginary excuses for violence and terror, people are trying to look at the causes and influences that created the environment for such extremism to come into existence, because regardless of what you think, examining the history behind all of this IS important in trying to come up with actual working solutions that wouldn't be fueled by populism, hatred and bullshit.
Besides, now correct me if I'm wrong, but Islamic terrorism is a relatively modern "phenomenon" and has mostly started to take place within the last century. For such an inherently violent and beastly (much more than Christianity or whatever) religion and/or ME culture (or that's what we're supposed to think), how come?
The people of Charlie Hebdo criticized and mocked the Islam and they had every right to do so, freedom of speech freedom of press. It's beyond comprehension that not all muslims didn't condemn the attack. .
I wasn't talking about the attack specifically. I meant the protests. I think those same Muslims who are filled with rage because of such mockery are the same ones who give Islam a bad rep with their actions.
I don't condone terrorist attacks but since the number of Muslims on the planet is very big, the extreme minority is big too. And it's funny how whenever a terrorist attack that is related to Islam happens, all Muslims are required to condemn this act (a lot of them do, but the media doesn't show it at all or rarely does). Sometimes I feel like people forget that not all Muslims are the same and at the end of the day they're just trying to live life. They have their issues and problems just like everyone else.
It's downright sick. People should be able to mock and criticize any religion without having to fear for their lives
I agree but that's not reality. Yes, a lot of Muslims were outraged at CH but they didn't act violently, only the extreme minority did - Don't forget that ISIS exists and that is a whole other subject. ISIS have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims.
You're still responsible for your own actions. I find it ridiculous to say that the only way the violence will stop is for America to stop meddling in the Middle East. What about Saudi Arabia, Russia, Assad ruled Syria? For real, I think your argument holds no ground whatsoever.
All I'm going to say is action-reaction. I'm against it but that's how it is. That is the only way I could explain it. It's really complicated but ALWAYS keep the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in mind because it is one of the biggest factors why a decent number of Muslims think of the west so negatively.
And to be honest, it's extremely hard to find rational arguments from people who want us to just nuke the middle east and then not let refugees come to any of our countries.
It just all drips with emotion and anger, and like, I get that. 9/11 broke a loooot of people's brains, seeing something so horrifying will certainly damage one's psyche.
But people really just need to take a step back, and really look at the history of America, and how we have treated other countries.
And America has killed waaay more innocent people in mindless wars since Vietnam than have ever been killed by ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Now there's a fact that you just can't argue.
It's not just Syria, Russia and the US. Those are the very current "players". The destabilization of the entire region goes beyond that and back to the havoc colonialism created.
But I just don't get it. If you are willing to put the blame of terrorism upon an entire group of people and hold them collectively guilty, in other words, you are pointing fingers at them, instead of trying to create dialogue that wouldn't necessarily include othering and antagonizing them, why are you not willing to point fingers at the very countries or individuals who are to this day still fueling this?
And in cases of terrorist groups like ISIS and so on, do you genuinely believe it's not a power play of sorts for them? You think they genuinely think Islam is that much of an important factor for them, other than just a cult-like means to keep a grip on each other? Ahmad is right by saying ISIS has actually killed more muslims than non muslim white people.
So you cannot criticise the approach and the doctrine of the Islamic movement without being labelled racist and far-right? Right, so how do you expect an evolution of conversation?
I am free to speak ill of some practices and beliefs of any religion. The one we seem to be speaking about has the largest number of out-of-touch beliefs, it's just staggering. It is not a step forward to embrace it, but a step back hundreds of years.
All practising Muslims do not believe in every aspect, however. Same with Christians. But those who do and those who preach the segregation and control of women and children and the practice of Sharia law should be criticised.
You cannot take the law into your own hands in a civilised society with a system already in place, a system of which does not discriminate and does not beat women for not covering themselves up.
It's not just Syria, Russia and the US. Those are the very current "players". The destabilization of the entire region goes beyond that and back to the havoc colonialism created.
Which colonialism? Ottoman? Western "colonialism" (imperialism / indirect rule) in ME lasted 40-50 years, and didn't destabilize an entire region by itself. The problems go back much farther than that.
And in cases of terrorist groups like ISIS and so on, do you genuinely believe it's not a power play of sorts for them? ]You think they genuinely think Islam is that much of an important factor for them, other than just a cult-like means to keep a grip on each other? Ahmad is right by saying ISIS has actually killed more muslims than non muslim white people.
Concerning terrorism, it's probably a combination of both.
I think in todays political climate with identity politics on a rapid ascend and huge movement of people across large distances and cultural borders, Islam is definitely more than just a cult of worship or ideology. In Europe it has become a political movement disguising itself as "marginalized identity" that only serves to create more barriers between its adherents and the outsiders/majority. Identity politics works like that, it strengthens groups’ internal unity at the expense of productive discourse.
About Charlie Hebdo, I think the outrage was absolutely ridiculous and people shouldn't be affected by such silly things, but people are extremely sensitive about what they believe in. Similar acts might be committed by a different religious group. Also, if you know a group of people will react violently (which again is unacceptable) maybe it's not the smartest thing to do it when you know the consequences? Offending people is not a solution.
This is sort of like the whole point of this discussion. You should be able to make fun of a fucking 1400-year old desert religion without having to fear violent reprisals. This is what European intellectuals have fought and died for in the last 300 years. If you as Muslim feel the need to react violently to a cartoon drawing of your prophet, then it's you and not the drawer who is the problem.
