More Terror Attacks on Paris

I heard one of my friends talking about it, but I didn't hear any details. But seriously, killing people in France? That about as much in bad taste as waving the white flag and still being taken out by the opposing team. I mean seriously.

 

ISIS has claimed responsibility.

I'm not even *squee!*ing surprised.

 

I first heard about this through the Eagles of Death Metal. The news utterly shocked me. I've heard that the band is fine, but my thoughts go out to those who died and lost their loved ones.

 

Well that makes more sense then. Though seriously, people going to extremes over stupid *squee!* is still being idiotic. What I am I saying? Most of the world is full of idiots especially if people are going to shoot up stuff and explode everything over trivial little problems.

 

Already people are taking to social media to spin a BS narrative about how the attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Sad that "progressives" have become such wishy-washy moonbeam chasers that we can't even have a frank discourse about religious extremism without someone crying "RACISM!", even though race clearly has nothing to do with anything.

Hitchens really did leave us too soon, dammit.

 

They don't, at least in any sort of direct way. Being an extremist seems to be the causal component of terrorism, since terrorists don't hail from any one specific religious group and no one religious group is even close to being primarily composed of terrorists.

That's nothing new; anti-"progressive" rhetoric has always used those supposed traits as ad hominem attacks.

Well, race is a social construction with a decent overlap with other items of one's culture, which can include religion. It's a bit less direct than the racist rhetoric we're used to talking about, but it's there.

We're talking about the guy who said that Buddhism is inherently nonviolent (in spite of the existence of militant Buddhist groups). He had a lot of misconceptions about religion, intelligent as he was.

 

What are you talking about? This is ISIS, a self-proclaimed Islamic state. They most certainly are spreading terror in the name of their religious ideology.

Not sure where you gleaned that message from my post, or anyone else's for that matter. But I will point out that the "few bad apples" argument is anything but productive. Islamic extremists who would actually take up weapons and spread misery and death may be a minority, but millions more Muslims support their actions. And the hundreds of millions more that condemn their actions still feel as though all criticism of their religion should be illegal. Even Muslims living within the boundaries of Western nations have vocalized scorn for free speech, declaring any speech that disparages their religion an "act of war".

The peaceful majority in any group is irrelevant when they allow the destructive minority to continue spreading fear in their name.

The overlap is there, but it's completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand and is thus completely unproductive to bring up to begin with. Whether a Muslim terrorist is of Arabic, African or Caucasian descent neither increases nor mitigates the severity of their actions. To say that criticizing a religion is in any way criticizing the 'majority race' of that religion's practicioners is willfully divisive and only distracts from the real issue.

You brought up ad hominem earlier, but now you're resorting to it. The fact that he was in error on certain nuances of certain religions doesn't invalidate anything he's said on the subject of Islamic terrorism.

 

Which is correlation, not causation. Just because they're violent and they're Muslims doesn't mean they're violent because they're Muslims.

It doesn't matter if it's "productive" to our situation if it's a fact.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Nobody's "allowing" anything, there's just not much that they can do about it. Those groups were previously kept in check by powerful dictatorships (i.e. Saddam Hussein) but now those are gone and with them the people are unequipped to deal with that kind of extreme violence. They're getting killed by ISIS, too.

 

I mean, I agree with you. I don't think people should be judged as a group based on the actions of a few members of their group. But unfortunately when one member of their group is a violent murderer and the other is not, most people are more likely to play it safe than give them the benefit of the doubt when their life is on the line. And I value lives over avoiding prejudice, to be honest. It sucks for the people who are connected to these terrorist groups, there's not much they can do about it, but you can't really lay the blame on the victims of the terrorist acts for being cautious. Ultimately the blame lies with the terrorist group themselves.

tl;dr: Yes, it is discrimination. But it's not really avoidable.


On a side note, a really interesting thing is how the above argument is constantly made in defense of Islam by people with your views, yet Christians consistently get the "Oh yeah, those people who did the Crusades and the Inquisition" end of the stick. Not that I know whether you personally actually make that argument, but as a Christian I would just like to point out the general, inherent social bias here, and how weird it is that people are actually defending the religion that is attacking them (at all) more than the religion that's (mostly) peacefully co-existing with them.

 

I don't think that's even a choice we should have to make; furthermore, prejudice and xenophobia can cost people their lives.

I respectfully disagree.

Actually, a lot of people who outright hate all Christians aren't so charitable towards Muslims, at least in my experience. Then again, it might make sense to have more negative emotions towards the neighbor you hate than the person all around the world that you hate, so maybe that produces the phenomenon you're referencing. However, let's be fair; I also think a lot of Christians in western countries tend to play the victim while simultaneously occupying the majority of our society... and that's part of the problem. People living in western countries take a poor view of Christianity being the majority since Christianity has taken an awkward place in sociopolitical rhetoric in the Americas since even before the U.S.A. was founded. From the Salem Witch Trials to the Red Scare, Christianity has pretty consistently cropped up as a blindfold for truth (and as a scapegoat for blame, it's true). Those things - along with the Crusades and the Inquisition - are usually reference by people with my views to put Christianity on the same level as Islam, not beneath Islam.

Now, what does that really mean? Is Christianity inherently bad? Nah, I don't think so, I think there are just times when it's been used to justify bad things. At the very least, we should be able to say that being Christian doesn't make you bad, since we all know good Christians that we like (at least, I do). So following from that, it sort of seems like my view on Christianity is a lot like my view on Islam. Would I ever be a Christian or a Muslim? Heck no, it's not at all something I would want to be. But do I think those religions cause these kinds of problems? Nope. I think extreme fundamentalists cause these kinds of problems. I hope that clarifies my stance on the matter.

I'd like to single out one more thing you've mentioned:

Do you actually think those are two different things? I mean, if Christianity is "mostly" co-existing, that "mostly" implies that some parts are not, which in turn could imply that Christianity is at least slightly "attacking" certain groups of people. Now take Islam: if Islam is only attacking people "at all," that implies that much of Islam is not attacking anyone, which in turn could imply that the majority of Islam (see: over a billion people) is "peacefully co-existing." So, really, these religions are doing remarkably similar things.

I know you didn't actually say "Christianity is better than Islam," but I think we need to be careful with our rhetoric here.

 

So can blind acceptance. It's not that simple, you can't just say "Even though some of them are psycho killers, it's wrong to treat them with caution, because they might NOT be psycho killers, and then they'd be offended". I'd rather offend someone than die, in this scenario.

And it may not be a choice we should have to make, it sucks to make that choice. I'd rather not have to treat anyone with undue caution and offend them. But thanks to Islamic extremists, now Muslims everywhere will be treated that way, and I don't blame anyone who does treat them that way.

Well all right, first of all, the Red Scare was not really related to Christianity, unless you somehow saw it as Christianity vs Communism, which wouldn't be all that accurate. Yes, the USSR was anti-religion, so Christians didn't like them, but really it was just about power. Americans were scared because the USSR had enough power to be a threat, and paranoid because of propaganda from the USA itself. There's the catalyst for such an event.

I'm not going to deny that religion in general, including Christianity, can completely miss and ignore the truth, thanks to cultural brainwashing. I don't advocate that, and it's a different kind of religion than I want to see out there. So, yes, it exists, and it is part of religion, sadly. But I don't think it's fair to say that represents religion.

The same can be said about nearly anything in the history of the world. Love has been used to justify bad things. Charity has been used to justify bad things. That doesn't really reflect on the thing itself. I know you sort of said just that, but you also (perhaps unintentionally) kind of make it sound like the statement "xxx has been used to justify bad things" actually means something when it doesn't.

I agree with you 100%. Extremists in any group are trouble, because when you're all the way on one end, you can't see anything else but that side, and thanks to brainwashing, you supposedly don't want to or need to, because you're right and that's that.

And just to clarify for myself, I was never under the impression that you thought religion or Christians were bad. I was just speaking of those who do. :3

Here's what I meant. You don't see Christian suicide bombers intentionally going into Muslim, or any other religion, or even Anti-Christian groups, and locations and killing hundreds, time after time. We aren't targeting innocents without shame, we wouldn't be proud of that. Even Christian extremists don't go that far; they make themselves look like idiots and protest funerals of soldiers and are *squee!*s, but they don't kill people.

You know what religion does that, repeatedly, not just in isolated incidents? Islam. So yes, I do think Christianity is better than Islam. In fact, I think a lot of religions are better than Islam. And I would be surprised if you expected me not to. I fully expect a Muslim to think that Islam is better than Christianity, as well. Why wouldn't they? If they didn't, then they probably wouldn't be a Muslim, unless they were forced to by the oppressive Islamic governments in the middle east. By the same logic, if I didn't think Christianity was better, I probably would not be a Christian, and would be agnostic.

Christianity has evolved culturally, and morally, since the middle ages. Yes, I would say that if it was feasible to strap bombs to themselves back then, some Christian madmen might have even suicide bombed the Muslims during the crusades. But now, we are better than that, even if some Christians are still pretty stupid. Islam has not evolved at all since the middle ages; in fact, the middle east is basically what Europe was in the middle ages, but with more advanced killing technology, which they didn't even invent or create for themselves, really.

Yes, there are Muslims who live in the west, and they are often intelligent and culturally aware. But as a religion, in general, it has always been about attacking the enemy, killing and subjugating the enemy. It was in the middle ages, and it still is today. Christianity, while it has had its dark moments, is all about the opposite. And, it's true: because forgiving your enemy and helping your enemy is a lot harder to do than killing and enslaving them, Christians screw up at it a lot. And it makes us look less than stellar. But it's still the basis of our religion, and I think that is grounds enough for me to consider it superior to Islam.

 

Just because the crusaders were Christian doesn't mean they were violent because they were Christians.

Oh, wait.

Look, I won't deny that there's almost certainly a huge geopolitical motivation behind ISIL's actions, but it takes a special detachment from reality to claim that religion is in no way involved. I'm sure the warmongering tone of various Koran verses and fact that ISIL's recent manifesto invokes the name of Allah no less than fourteen times doesn't lend any credence to the idea that perhaps these people are just as much religious demagogues as they are...well, whatever the hell regressives are going to call them. "Freedom fighters", perhaps.

Well, it's also a 'fact' that corrupt cops are in the minority. Should we just flounder about the "few bad apples" argument and pretend the problems will go away on their own? Absolutely not; we should hold the fire to someone's feet. The fact that a contingent of corrupt cops can exist with total impunity within a majority of good cops indicates a fundamental systemic problem. Likewise, the fact that certain violent behaviors are deemed "acceptable" or "understandable" by Muslim communities indicates a problem with fundamentalist Islam as a religion.

The fact that you think the most productive avenues of discourse "don't matter" speaks a lot about your character. Inaction is not a proper course of action, I'm sorry to notify you. At the very least, these things need to be discussed, and the fact that people knee-jerk at the mere mention of an atrocity having a religious component indicates to me that society still has a lot of growing to do.

As far as I'm concerned, no cow should ever be too sacred for criticism.

How petulant. Normally I'd respond with a Let Me Google That For You link, but it's not my job to spoon feed you information. If you want to blithely ignore the majority of the Muslim world that favors the Bronze Age tenets of the Sharia being made the law of the land - the very system ISIL has openly declared they want to advance - be my guest. Willful ignorance ain't my cup of tea, personally, but whatever suits you.

Anyway, it seems you've largely made up your mind on this matter, so I'll leave you to it.

 

To be fair, the burden of proof is, in debate, considered to be upon the one making a statement. So if you are asserting something is true, you really should provide proof if it is requested.

I do think you are mostly right in what he asked you to prove, however.

 

I think we should treat psycho killers like psycho killers and people who aren't psycho killers like people who aren't psycho killers.

The Red Scare had a lot to do with McCarthyism, which used Christianity to back fear-mongering tactics.

Good! So maybe we can agree that saying "Islam has been used to justify bad things"" actually doesn't mean anything? Because that's definitely implied in what you said just there.

Untrue. The Anti-balaka have slaughtered Muslims. The Lord's Resistance Army has committed acts dubbed as crimes against humanity. The National Liberation Front of Tripura has killed Hindus who refused to convert to Christianity. The Army of God attacked American abortion clinics and doctors in the eighties. These are just a handful of examples of Christian terrorists.

Yep.

Kinda like ISIS.

Neat comparison, but if we actually treated cops the way you seem to want to treat Muslims, all corrupt cops might as well be corrupt because they're cops; the rhetoric of your comments has implied as much. They aren't, we just need to rethink the specifics of the ways we interact with them. Recognizing fundamental systemic problems is key; I think specifically we must examine the history of the ways our government has interacted with these institutions so as to gain a deeper awareness for how the problem functions and what role we have played in it. I'm all for that, but I don't think all cops are evil and I don't think I want to live in a society without cops.

I don't equate productivity with morality; that's all.

Burden of proof is on you when you make those kinds of claims, man.

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

Well, then that's your decision for yourself. Good luck with abandoning all basic psychological concepts related to inter-personal judgement because you feel any amount of prejudice is too offensive. I'm not sure how one is meant to develop first impressions or predictions based on past experiences and events without such important concepts.

All right, didn't know that. I have to admit that I've never been all that interested in the cold war, so I only know the very basics about it.

That would be correct. If I said that, it would mean nothing, good or bad, about Islam, besides the fact that it can be twisted to serve a purpose, as almost anything can. However, that is not the statement I would use if I were to make a statement about Islam, precisely because it means nothing.

Ah, you're right. Those do exist, and somehow identify as Christian. And the things they have done are disgusting, especially The Lord's Resistance. I would certainly qualify that group as terrorists, but the others I only know a little about.

Perhaps I misspoke. There do exist terrorist groups that identify as Christian, at least one of which is just as bad as ISIS. But they don't exactly follow general Christian ideology. And perhaps ISIS does not follow Islamic ideology. I am not extremely familiar with the Qaran, to be honest.

Look, let me explain. Despite what you may think, I do judge people on an individual basis. I will not say something as foolish as "Because this person is a Muslim, they are dangerous and evil".

However, I do not believe in this progressive idea that prejudging, or in fact judging at all (in some people's opinions), is entirely wrong. I am not afraid to say "Because that person is a Muslim, they are potentially dangerous", because I am, in as many respects as could be possible while still speaking in general terms, considered an enemy of Muslims. I live in the USA, the place that's been derping around in the middle east's business since before I was born. I am white. I am Christian. Logically, there is a pretty good chance they will not like me. Logically, I should be on my guard.

I am not going to cry 'terrorist' because I'm not an uneducated old person who thinks everybody from the middle east has bombs strapped to them. I am not going to cry 'heathen' and shun them from my community or attack them verbally or physically. But they will have to try a little harder to earn my trust than somebody who has lived in the USA their whole life.

YES, people from the USA can be terrorists. I don't just inherently trust anybody from the USA, either. But in general, citizens of the USA don't consider themselves enemies of me based on immediately recognizable qualities. The same cannot be said of most people who live in the middle east.

In summary, I am willing to make tentative judgements about people before I know them based on superficial qualities. I just don't refuse to part with said tentative judgements if they are proven wrong.

I believe this is efficient behavior, as many (not all) stereotypes are not that far from the truth, and those that do not fall under such a stereotype are, more often than not, the exception to the rule. And the above method of pre-interactive judgement accounts for such exceptions.

I am not afraid of being 'offensive' to people that I hardly know. If someone I don't know all that well has been offended by me, then perhaps they are the ones who are being prejudiced? Surely I have a reason for believing what I do, and if they don't take the time to get to know me better, then they've made a judgement based on what they see me saying without understanding the deeper thought process behind what I'm saying.

 

You keep bringing up offensiveness. I can't for the life of me understand why. I'm distinguishing between what I think is ethical and what I think is unethical. I have no interest in solely whether a judgement is offensive. My concern is that endorsing prejudice is the wrong thing to do, and that also the "important concepts" to which you refer are extremely slanted towards favoring your own ideologies.

I hope you're comfortable with people doing the same thing to Christians, at least.

 

Especially during something like the Inquisition, or in a place where Christians are not so well received, I would expect it and understand it. I would not be happy about it, of course, but it is human nature.



And speaking of human nature, after thinking over my last reply, I think I said some things that didn't quite match up with my beliefs. So I need to apologize for that. I should be receptive and warm towards everyone, regardless of potential danger, different religion, or whether we're enemies or not. Heck, I just said as much.

I guess I got away from myself there. Of course, I am not going to say that I think Islamic beliefs are right. But I, and other Christians (other people, even), shouldn't let that get in the way of doing what's right. (I don't mean to make myself sound all superior here, I just screwed up for goodness' sake.)

 

You're definitely not obligated to have the same religious belief as anyone else, so no worries there.

I don't think you sounded superior there. If anything that was a pretty humble post, and rather humbling to read. Rest assured I have not glossed over the things you have said and have tried to give them due consideration, in our discussion and outside of it as well.