Dozens killed by truck in France

[Squirrel]

 

I won't apologize for being on the side of a net win for humanity. I also won't apologize for being harsh with those that arent. We play enough "can't we both be right" games.

That's easy for us to do. We aren't feminists, reformers, kurds, moderates, or children in a region that brutalizes them all to keep the status quo.

If you can't get behind that I don't apologize for telling you that you're just plain wrong. Hurt feelings seem like a petty thing compared to the topic.

Then you are part of the problem, imo, and not part of the solution. My way or no way.

[ashbury]

 a net win for humanity.

Do you get to run that spreadsheet?

 

If someone says "submit to Allah, that is the only true hope for humanity", why is your form of accounting automatically better? And how in the world do you get that person to agree?

[TheLeviathan]

Because I'm asking only for them to submit to human decency aND peace. Same as anyone else.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Again, change the practice/interpretation.

It's funny to keep hearing this blamed on poverty and education. Take a wild guess what two of the positive consequences of the Christian reformation were?

Islam is basically where Christianity was 1000 years ago from suppression of rights, women being treated as property, global terror (just called it crusades instead of jihad), economic oppression, direct influence in government, and the list goes on.

When the religious strong hold fragmented and reform was forced....progress happened over time. Quit looking at the symptoms and look at the virus.

Who are you talking to? 

 

 

[formerly33]

 

I won't apologize for being on the side of a net win for humanity. I also won't apologize for being harsh with those that arent. We play enough "can't we both be right" games.

That's easy for us to do. We aren't feminists, reformers, kurds, moderates, or children in a region that brutalizes them all to keep the status quo.

If you can't get behind that I don't apologize for telling you that you're just plain wrong. Hurt feelings seem like a petty thing compared to the topic.

But you're still assuming that people have to take "sides." When you're no longer open to the opinions of other people, you've taken a side. Half this country's problem is our eagerness to take a side. Why do there have to be different sides? Why can't we just offer solutions and respect one another's differing opinions without shouting, "You're wrong!" or jumping to the conclusion that they're on the other side? No one's going to ever change their opinion on a subject if all they hear is that they're wrong. I know it never swayed me. It's thoughtful discussion and mutual respect that incites change. And, in the end, we're not so different ... I assume we're all on the same side in wanting a better world to live in.

 

I know I'm being an idealist, but we could strive for that in this forum, at least. Yesterday you were getting mad at Mike Sixel for speaking of views other than those on this site. It seems you're doing the same thing here - unless you're implying PseudoSABR doesn't value humanity. Then (and I'm sorry to say it) you're the one who's just plain wrong.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I know I'm being an idealist, but we could strive for that in this forum, at least. Yesterday you were getting mad at Mike Sixel for speaking of views other than those on this site. It seems you're doing the same thing here - unless you're implying PseudoSABR doesn't value humanity. Then (and I'm sorry to say it) you're the one who's just plain wrong.

 

Pseudo's arguments prioritize political correctness (or something, it's nebulous because his arguments have shifted all over the place depending upon which corner he thinks he can back into) over human decency.  And this happens, on both sides, when we get accustomed to just lining up on the opposite side of whomever we generally disagree with.  Conservatives do it and so do liberals.  As soon as their natural enemy lines up on one side, logic and reason be damned, we gotta line up on the other.

 

That's what this is.  Liberals can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that they lined up on the wrong side of this issue because all they see is "conservatives think that, better get over on my side".  (If you want a conservative example, the police issue is a wonderful one.  Conservatives should, by definition, want LESS police power, not more.  Yet....look at them take their side!)

 

Islam IS the problem, but that doesn't mean that's where the conversation stops.  We can openly debate how to solve that problem, but if you line up opposite of that you're just plain wrong.  If you prioritize or excuse anything else over that, you're just plain wrong.  And I won't compromise where it comes to something so starkly right and wrong.

 

Islam stands, openly, in large chunks of the world, against human decency, education, secularism, justice, feminism, and a host of other things.  There should be no compromise in opposing that.  Just as there should be no compromise on that for any other force that does the same.  

 

Our civilization had a massive net win when we reformed Christianity from the brutal tyrant it was for centuries.  There are millions (maybe billions) suffering under a similar yoke now.  Again, I won't compromise on wanting to fix that.  So, either get on board or get out of the way.  I welcome, once you're on board, differences of opinion about how we make the world a better place by reforming Islam, but if you're distracting from the real problem then you aren't helping.  And you damn sure aren't standing on the side of liberalism, freedom, and peace.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Then you are part of the problem, imo, and not part of the solution. My way or no way.

 

I don't consider peace and decency to others a point where compromise is appropriate.

[formerly33]

 

Pseudo's arguments prioritize political correctness (or something, it's nebulous because his arguments have shifted all over the place depending upon which corner he thinks he can back into) over human decency.  And this happens, on both sides, when we get accustomed to just lining up on the opposite side of whomever we generally disagree with.  Conservatives do it and so do liberals.  As soon as their natural enemy lines up on one side, logic and reason be damned, we gotta line up on the other.

 

That's what this is.  Liberals can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that they lined up on the wrong side of this issue because all they see is "conservatives think that, better get over on my side".  (If you want a conservative example, the police issue is a wonderful one.  Conservatives should, by definition, want LESS police power, not more.  Yet....look at them take their side!)

 

Islam IS the problem, but that doesn't mean that's where the conversation stops.  We can openly debate how to solve that problem, but if you line up opposite of that you're just plain wrong.  If you prioritize or excuse anything else over that, you're just plain wrong.  And I won't compromise where it comes to something so starkly right and wrong.

 

Islam stands, openly, in large chunks of the world, against human decency, education, secularism, justice, feminism, and a host of other things.  There should be no compromise in opposing that.  Just as there should be no compromise on that for any other force that does the same.  

 

Our civilization had a massive net win when we reformed Christianity from the brutal tyrant it was for centuries.  There are millions (maybe billions) suffering under a similar yoke now.  Again, I won't compromise on wanting to fix that.  So, either get on board or get out of the way.  I welcome, once you're on board, differences of opinion about how we make the world a better place by reforming Islam, but if you're distracting from the real problem then you aren't helping.  And you damn sure aren't standing on the side of liberalism, freedom, and peace.

First of all, you're stereotyping Pseudo and jumping to conclusions about why he believes what he does. That's flat out rude and unlikely to accomplish much.

 

As for your second paragraph, that's what I was saying.

 

And as for the rest, I just want to ask if you know any Muslim people. This is a bit touchy with me because I do. Oh yeah, even Muslim men who respect my right to be different, a woman who can be whoever and whatever I want (heck, even more so than some Christians I know). Here you are again, stereotyping. Islam is not the problem. Radicalizing Islam is. Unfortunately, that's a huge problem right now. But everyone has the right to follow their own beliefs AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HURTING OTHERS. So yes, ISIS is a problem. Muslims are not.

 

And again, it's disrespectful to not be open to differences of opinion until we're on board with you. If I was totally on board with you, I wouldn't have a differing opinion. And as much as I respect you and value your opinions, if everyone was the same, I'm not really sure if we would accomplish much. There'd probably be nothing to accomplish.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

First of all, you're stereotyping Pseudo and jumping to conclusions about why he believes what he does. That's flat out rude and unlikely to accomplish much.

 

As for your second paragraph, that's what I was saying.

 

And as for the rest, I just want to ask if you know any Muslim people. This is a bit touchy with me because I do. Oh yeah, even Muslim men who respect my right to be different, a woman who can be whoever and whatever I want (heck, even more so than some Christians I know). Here you are again, stereotyping. Islam is not the problem. Radicalizing Islam is. Unfortunately, that's a huge problem right now. But everyone has the right to follow their own beliefs AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HURTING OTHERS. So yes, ISIS is a problem. Muslims are not.

 

And again, it's disrespectful to not be open to differences of opinion until we're on board with you. If I was totally on board with you, I wouldn't have a differing opinion. And as much as I respect you and value your opinions, if everyone was the same, I'm not really sure if we would accomplish much. There'd probably be nothing to accomplish.

 

I asked Psuedo directly, upthread, why it's so hard to accept it and his response was a question instead of an answer.

 

I've had a couple dozen wonderful Muslim children and their families were every bit as wonderful.  They were a joy to work with and as compassionate and generous as any families I've worked with.  There is nothing, inherent, in Islam that prevents it from being about peace and love.  And those here are almost all here practicing their faith in peace and love.  The refugees that some want to bar from here also are trying to escape oppression and hate.  I'd welcome them with open arms - they are the reformers.  They are the ones that need our support.

 

But the fact, the simple plain fact, is that in large areas of the world Islam does not stand for peace.  It openly stands against peace, love, freedom, justice, equal rights, etc.  We have to accept that.  We have to work to change that.  It's clear it can be changed, many Western Muslims (and some in other areas of the world) actively practice that.  Hell, the Kurds are hated in their own space in the world (in part) for that reason!  The belief that it is some tiny fraction of believers of Islam in Asia and the Middle East is demonstrably false.  We have to get those believers out there that want to change their religious practices for the better the power and safety to do so.  But right now they don't have that.  (I just read a sad story about a woman in Pakistan who had the audacity to be flirty on the internet, strangled by her brother to save the familiy's honor) We don't do that by pretending that the issue is something it's not.  The glue of all the problems there - poverty, hate, anti-feminism, honor killings, unequal rights, etc is Islam.  We have to show them that they don't have to practice their faith in the way they are now. 

 

Can we differ in opinion on how to help them achieve that?  Absolutely, I welcome any and all ideas.  But to differ on the problem?  To look facts in the face about the spread of this practice of the faith and deny them?  To find excuses so we don't have to face the daunting challenge of confronting religion?  No, I won't differ or compromise on that.  It'll be hard.  It's going to offend some.  It's probably even going to be violent.

 

But aren't we all better off for facing down those challenges in Christianity?  That process probably still has more room to improve, but aren't we better for having forced those changes?  I'd say so and I can't see how any rational person could argue otherwise. Civilization, science, feminism, secularism, all of these things were made possible by the defeat of oppressive Christianity.  Islam requires the same - accept that and by all means bring your opinions to the table about how.  Deny it and you're just plain wrong.

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is nothing, inherent, in Islam that prevents it from being about peace and love.

Quoted for posterity. 

[TheLeviathan]

Maybe it bears saying so it helps some of you.  There is a strong cry on the right that the problems in Islam are problems because of Islam.

 

See, for me, I don't ever get into the argument of "what does the religion REALLY say?" because I find that exercise useless.  A religion, just like a book, a poem, a painting, or anything else speaks a variety of things to each person.  

 

I don't believe Islam is inherently violent or peaceful any more or less than I believe that about Satanism, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster, or Christianity, or Vulcan.  Believe whatever you want, however you want....but practice peace and decency.  And Islam is the central force behind widespread practices that are neither.  Just as Christianity once was.  Just as many, many other belief systems have been.

 

The practice of Islam has to be fixed.  That's the core problem and it will take a reformation of practice to accomplish that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Quoted for posterity. 

 

See, you should read my next response.  I fear you, like so many, have come to associate the charge that "islam needs to be fixed" and put that through your tribe translator to come out in the voice of Donald Trump spouting some dumb **** you'd hear on Fox News.

 

It's possible to believe Islam can be about peace and love and still feel that Islam is the problem.  These are not mutually exclusive as much as your tribe (and the other tribe) seem to think.  In fact, it's the very heart of the matter - you need to accept that both are true.   

[PseudoSABR]

So Islam isn't inherently the problem but is inherently the problem?  Whatever dude.  (And please don't bother clarifying; I just don't care how you'll try to thread that needle.)  

 

Frankly, I'm more than a little bit insulted by your questioning my motivations and values, and putting me in some tribe box of liberalism.  Stop it.  I can disagree with you without you questioning my value of human decency. I mean, how dare you.  

 

It's you who have been advocating mutual exclusiveness, if anyone so much as suggests that Islam isn't inherently the problem, you bludgeon them into silence.  It's happened over and over and over in this thread. Who needs religion or tribalism, when one can muster that kind of sanctimony.  There's a reason no one's chiming in with their takes...

[TheLeviathan]

Islam, itself, is not inherently violent.  Islam, in today's world, is being practiced in a brutal, violent, oppressive way by large numbers in large regions of the world.  The practice is the problem.

 

The same distinction was true about Christianity 1,000 years ago.  We have hundreds of years of evidence to show that change is not just possible, but wonderfully rewarding for civilization when it happens, but also that the change is hard.  

 

If you don't want to be lumped into the tribe box, stop arguing like the box.  I'm used to this sort of reaction, unfortunately, because I don't fit in either box.  I get the same thing when I confront right-wingers on this issue, they just can't get off the stupid belief that Islam is inherently violent.  You, on the other hand, just can't get off the belief that Islam isn't the problem.  And for both sides it's comfortable that way - you get to sit in your little box, largely unchallenged, and feel rewarded.  But you're both half right and somehow entirely wrong on the issue. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Maybe it bears saying so it helps some of you.  There is a strong cry on the right that the problems in Islam are problems because of Islam.

 

See, for me, I don't ever get into the argument of "what does the religion REALLY say?" because I find that exercise useless.  A religion, just like a book, a poem, a painting, or anything else speaks a variety of things to each person.  

 

I don't believe Islam is inherently violent or peaceful any more or less than I believe that about Satanism, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster, or Christianity, or Vulcan.  Believe whatever you want, however you want....but practice peace and decency.  And Islam is the central force behind widespread practices that are neither.  Just as Christianity once was.  Just as many, many other belief systems have been.

 

The practice of Islam has to be fixed.  That's the core problem and it will take a reformation of practice to accomplish that.

This is more or less what many of been trying to say, and you've just bulled them over.  If you can concede that not all Muslim practice Islam in a way that leads to violence, you acknowledge that only part of the practice of Islam must be fixed.  Whether we call that radical or devout or whatever hardly matters, but its that nuance that I've at least been trying to get you to acknowledge.

 

I think you see me and others within that tribalistic lens that you avoid looking for where we have a lot to agree on.  You're insistence on being right, and sides, and tribalism, well, I think is the real impass here. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you don't want to be lumped into the tribe box, stop arguing like the box. 

What do you think, I'm going to my liberal masters to check in with them on my posts? That I've got Rachel Maddow sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear?  When I push against your argument that Islam is the real source/root of the problem--which sounds a lot like Islam is inherently the problem--I can do so as an individual.  I keep saying Islam is the vehicle, which allows for your arguments about the Islam's practice to co-exist, but you insist on framing my argument in a way where you create unnecessary divisions.

 

And if the practice of Islam is broken/the problem, and Islam isn't inherently the problem, what is the source/root of why the practice of Islam is broken?  That's what I've been advocating to analyze and think about.  And there's nothing tribally liberal about that.  

[TheLeviathan]

I am right because I stand first and foremost for peace and human decency on this.  I don't feel that position ever has much chance of being wrong.  It is false to suggest most practicing Muslims in the Middle East and Asia are peaceful and prizing freedom.  They aren't.  That's the problem.  It's the widespread practice of Islam in these regions that is oppressive and violent.  That is the problem.  

 

I will continue to bull over anyone that can't accept that fact, because falsehood in the name of something else (whatever reason you have for your denial of reality) has actual costs.  There are little Muslim girls all over the Middle East and Asia that will never be educated, never allowed to be free, and many of whom will be killed with impunity, often by their own family.  There are Christians, Kurds, Jews, and Muslims brutalized merely for practicing their faith another way.  Those that speak their mind on blogs are butchered without justice.

 

The practice of Islam, by many, many millions of people in this world needs to be reformed.  That is the heart of the problem for this violence and oppression.  I will always push back against any conservative that says Islam cannot be about peace.  They're wrong.  None have stepped in to say such a thing so far as I can tell.  And I will always push back against anyone that tries to marginalize the scope of the problem with the false narrative that this is a tiny fraction of practicing Muslims.  It is not.  

 

We need another reformation - join in.  There are lots of people who stand to gain from it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I am right because I stand first and foremost for peace and human decency on this.  

So do I.  So does everyone here.  Adhering to such value doesn't automatically make you right dude.  In fact, from your posture in this thread, I'd say you value righteousness far more than decency. 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

And if the practice of Islam is broken/the problem, and Islam isn't inherently the problem, what is the source/root of why the practice of Islam is broken?  That's what I've been advocating to analyze and think about.  And there's nothing tribally liberal about that.  

 

That's a fair question, probably a network of things have contributed, but why get caught in those weeds?

 

Did it matter why Christians in the 11th century rode off to slaughter Muslims?  Maybe there was a host of reasons like poverty, education, racism, and other factors in that too.  Does it change the central problem there either?  I don't think so.  You still had a bunch of zealots misuse their faith to go off terrorizing.  They could do that, however, because they knew the fundamentalist, dogmatic approach to their faith would always keep them insulated from any real reprecussions.

 

That didn't change until we fractured the hold Catholicism had on the Western world.  Only then did the other things start to improve.

 

So you're welcome to explore that, but just know you're worried about why the person with lung cancer has a cough.  The cough isn't the problem, it'll get better if you can treat the lung cancer.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So do I.  So does everyone here.  Adhering to such value doesn't automatically make you right dude.  In fact, from your posture in this thread, I'd say you value righteousness far more than decency. 

 

Oh, I value both.  I make no apology for feeling righteous about this.  I became passionate about this through my work.

 

Every time I think about this issue I think about a student who I will just call Is.  Is discovered a talent and a passion for math and science with me and her mother broke down into tears in a parent teacher conference about how happy she was to see her daughter do something she feared was never possible in Turkey where they came from.  And to hear the same about another girl that same year from a family from Somalia tore my heart out.

 

So, yeah, I do this for Is and Sal and all the little girls and children in those areas of the world who'll never have that chance.  They deserve it too.  And they deserve it above any and all other bull **** and denial.

 

Thing is, you can be on the right side of it to, you just need to accept that Islam can be both about peace and love and, right now, be the biggest force for oppression and violence in the world.  The only thing stopping you is you.

[Bark's Lounge]

I thought I would chime in here and say a few things.

 

I have a great amount of respect for all of those who have taken part in this thread. There are a lot of very intelligent people here.

 

I think Levi has taken an unnecessary amount of negativity on this thread for what he is trying to convey. He is not being smug, stubborn or holier than thou, just some of the terms that I feel were being directed his way.

 

Leviathan is being passionate about this subject because he 150% believes in it and I do as well.

 

I consider myself to be pretty damn far to the left, but I have never seen such a gaping wound in the world today as I see in the Muslim World. That does not represent all of the population that adheres to that religion, but it is a horrific problem, one that controls vast regions of this planet.

 

It is only right for someone to want this problem addressed and to end the suffering of many, many millions of people all of which are Muslims.

 

This thread isn't going to prevent many more deaths, things will continue to operate as they do in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc... It will be business as usual.

 

Many more will die in the Western world as well, due to Islamic Terrorism. Heck, it could be one of us who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I care about people. I care about the right outcome. I think people have good ideas on this subject on this thread, but what Levi is talking about is correct and a big part of the solution to this problem that none of us ever wanted or could have dreamed up 20 years ago. Most of us don't want to acknowledge it. I do understand, it's a tough situation. Saying that, I hope the collective of the Earth's citizens can fix this mess and the coming generations can live in peace and have the freedoms that we all deserve and demand.

 

I commend Levi on his stance.

[Craig Arko]

It's been nice knowing some of you. I have no patience for bigots of any ilk.

 

Goodbye.

[ashbury]

So you're welcome to explore that, but just know you're worried about why the person with lung cancer has a cough.  The cough isn't the problem, it'll get better if you can treat the lung cancer.

You're still not seeing the self-contained logic involved in this view. Other self-contained logic can be equally persuasive.

 

And you're assuming the patient went to the doctor seeking help in the first place. Not to mention that an analogy to a disease is much too cut-and-dried: there is no agreement as to who has the disease. "No, Doctor, you're the one with cancer. My cough demonstrates my body is dealing with the toxins surrounding me and expelling them. Where is your cough?" 

 

Moreover, words like "peace" and "freedom" mean quite different things to different cultures, and not just through perversity but by emphasizing different aspects. Communists for instance ae well known to question Americans' definition of freedom by pointing to the freedom from having to sleep under a bridge when you have no job. (And I have no interest in wandering down a tangent here exploring Communism's differences between theory and practice. I'm hardly a Red anyway.) This isn't the same as defending a particular culture - it's just recognizing that zero progress can be made when the cultures talk past one another.

 

ChiTown's advice to tone down the level of certainty seems wise.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This isn't the same as defending a particular culture - it's just recognizing that zero progress can be made when the cultures talk past one another.

 

ChiTown's advice to tone down the level of certainty seems wise.

 

I think I've said all I can say, to be frank.  I think that last comment illustrates best what my point is.  There is an entire political side of the spectrum that won't even entertain the idea of something that should be at the heart of what they believe.  And the left has gone so far down the wrong path it's going to take some serious shaking to get them back to reality.   Yelling "bigot" is the last defense of someone whose entire thought process on the issue is so bankrupt that they'd rather level a charge like that than attempt introspection.  Please, let it stay on the board, I can't be insulted by something I know not to be true.  It stands as exactly all that is wrong in this conversation that needs to be fixed.

 

And there are so, so many that will gain from it when we do.  To your point ashbury, I agree, we may need to talk more about what peace and freedom look like. I welcome that conversation.  Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, the practice of Islam is miles and miles away from such a discussion.  I hope, through reformation of their practices, we might some day have that talk.  Again, there are so many that stand to gain from it.

[formerly33]

 

Many more will die in the Western world as well, due to Islamic Terrorism. Heck, it could be one of us who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The difference is, Levi is trying to lay the blame entirely on Islam (though, in his defense, at the same time he isn't, rendering his argument little more than confusing) rather than Islamic terrorism. Yet he gets angry with Pseudo for calling him out on it, insisting that because he disagrees with him, he's a lefty puppet regurgitating liberal propaganda. I find myself agreeing with most of what Levi says, but every now and again he has to bring the root of the problem back to Islam. As many Muslims will tell you, ISIS is not Islam. Islam is not ISIS. But if you disagree with Levi on that one subject (let me repeat, ONE), he has to remind you that he's right and you're wrong. That's a surefire way of rubbing someone the wrong way. I'm not saying Pseudo or I or anyone else has been the model of professionalism, either; at this point in the conversation, I feel like most of us have descended to a level of childish bickering. I find that surprising. I quit reading the baseball threads on this site a long time ago for this exact reason, and reading the banter on this thread has proved equally fruitless.

[TheLeviathan]

My suggestion is that it's only confusing because you're seeing it through the lense of right/left.  As soon as you unshackle from that and look at what is true, I hope you'll see there is no contradiction.

 

I'll say it again, Islam can be practiced with peace and love, but so many around the world are not doing so.  ISIS is a product of Islam, just as the Crusades were a product of Christianity.  That doesn't mean that that is what either religion is inherently.  What any idea or religion is, to the person who believes it, will vary.  What matters is how they practice it and how widespread those interpretations are in practice.  Today, in Islam, that practice is too often an interpretation that is dogmatic, regressive, and violent.  That is the root of so much oppression and violence.

 

If that doesn't help with the confusion, by all means send me a message.  I'd more more than happy to explain better than I have to this point.  

[TheLeviathan]

Perhaps I should just let others do my talking for me.  Maajid Nawaz says it better than I can:

This brings me to the term ‘Islamophobia’, often deployed – even against other Muslims – as a shield against any criticism, and as a muzzle on free speech. If heresy is to be celebrated, it follows that no idea, no matter how ‘deeply held’, is given special status. For there will always be an equally ‘deeply held’ belief in opposition to it. Hatred motivated specifically to target Muslims, people like me, must be condemned.

But to confuse this hatred with satirising, questioning, researching, reforming, contextualising or historicising Islam, or any other faith or dogma, is as good as returning to Galileo’s Inquisition. It follows, therefore, that any liberal naturally concerned with a fair society must be the first to openly defend against the erosion of free speech, especially when deceptively done in the name of minority rights.

Amidst a wave of self-doubt, blasphemy laws, though formally abolished in the UK, are effectively being revived by a cultural climate that purports to be liberal yet upholds illiberalism. Ultimately, restrictions on freedom of speech achieve only one thing – the domination of regressive ideals. Reactionaries are the first to take offence, and the first to demand punitive action against those who they deem offensive. In this way we actively empower illiberal dogma in the name of ‘diversity’, while abandoning vulnerable activists within minorities in the name of ‘respect for difference’.

 

 

And, also a much better frame for my own feelings:

 

Author and anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz explains how certain members of the "regressive left" threaten progress within minority communities, in particular liberal Muslims. Members of the left too often champion a brand of racism of low expectations, through which they lower their standards when looking at other cultures if those cultures happen to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. This misguided prioritization of cultural tolerance over the progress and the advancement of liberal values handicaps the evolution of minority communities and harms the weakest members of those groups. Nawaz' argument is simple: If we claim to support human rights and classical liberalism, why do we pull punches when it comes to criticizing minority communities and cultures that don't live up to those standards?

 

 

[Bark's Lounge]

I believe this thread could have been ground breaking. We could of had a tremendous conversation. I Think our divides and perceptions killed us here. I think we should reflect upon this and maybe, be ashamed of ourselves and learn a lesson.

 

To be honest, the divides were not that big at all.

 

One voice was left on an island all by himself, and we did him no favors.

 

The other side used terms that do not solve anything.

 

I hope our next conversation can be more proactive.

 

We are in this thing together, let's be helpful and understanding. Let's have some patience.

[formerly33]

 

My suggestion is that it's only confusing because you're seeing it through the lense of right/left.  As soon as you unshackle from that and look at what is true, I hope you'll see there is no contradiction.

 

I'll say it again, Islam can be practiced with peace and love, but so many around the world are not doing so.  ISIS is a product of Islam, just as the Crusades were a product of Christianity.  That doesn't mean that that is what either religion is inherently.  What any idea or religion is, to the person who believes it, will vary.  What matters is how they practice it and how widespread those interpretations are in practice.  Today, in Islam, that practice is too often an interpretation that is dogmatic, regressive, and violent.  That is the root of so much oppression and violence.

 

If that doesn't help with the confusion, by all means send me a message.  I'd more more than happy to explain better than I have to this point.  

Okay ... I'm going to start over again. I was being immature. I see no need for a PM.

 

The difference between you and me is that you think, quote, "Islam can be practiced with peace and love." I, however, believe Islam can be practiced with violence and hatred. If you go all out and blame Islam, then you are essentially blaming anyone who practices that faith, even though I know that's not your intention.

 

I have a really hard time just laying the blame on Islam. History has shown that no matter their religion, people can (and will) take it and come to their own conclusions about it. There are people who will try to use religion to justify (or condemn) all their actions, be they good or bad. People are afraid of deity, so it's easy to get people on the bandwagon/make them think they're doing what God wants them to do. Still, that's not all bad. It can inspire many wonderful things. The root of the problem isn't really religion, imo. Neither is it Islam. It's people.

 

If you disagree with that, I'd be more than happy to listen to your explanation as to why.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Perhaps I should just let others do my talking for me.  Maajid Nawaz says it better than I can:

 

And, also a much better frame for my own feelings:

Solidarity.