Dozens killed by truck in France

[TheLeviathan]

 

 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.

 

I agree with that statement!  (here it comes....) But....I'm not sure it matters.

 

Couldn't you say the same about racism, sexism, or anything else?  At the end of the day I'm not sure how that statement gets us going forward. I agree that Islam, like anything else like it, can be used for good or evil by people.  The problem is that the common tool in these regions for violence and oppression is Islam.

 

I'd like to reform that so Islam is used for peace and that will make the lives of so many, so much better.

[formerly33]

 

I agree with that statement!  (here it comes....) But....I'm not sure it matters.

 

Couldn't you say the same about racism, sexism, or anything else?  At the end of the day I'm not sure how that statement gets us going forward. I agree that Islam, like anything else like it, can be used for good or evil by people.  The problem is that the common tool in these regions for violence and oppression is Islam.

 

I'd like to reform that so Islam is used for peace and that will make the lives of so many, so much better.

No, I don't think that is comparable to saying the same about racism, etc. My reason for saying this is because all racism is bad - ALL. Not all Islam is bad. Heck, you know there are liberal Muslims ... and that's probably wording it poorly because of course there are liberal racists. Hmm ... well, there are progressive, even gay Muslims. It's harmful to categorize them alongside the rest - it's just too broad.

 

I do agree with you, however, that Islam needs mass reform. Progressive Muslims are just the beginning of a trend in that direction. However, lashing out in anger about the system is simply not going to help things - and Denmark is evidence of this and what can be done better.

[PseudoSABR]

 

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.

Honestly, Bark, I hope that we don't champion the kind of rhetoric that took place in this thread; it got personal, judgmental, and righteous. I think you're too influenced by your agreement on the issue, and you're not holding someone whom you agree with to a very high standard of civility (or human decency), which honestly is pretty disappointing.   

 

There was nothing groundbreaking being said here; the premise that Islam is the root/source of the problem is something those on the right have said for decades.  Would it have been helpful to try to couch you or Levi in right-wing box?  No.  

 

We eventually arrived at some nuance between criticizing Islamic practice, that inherently Islamic isn't necessarily violent, and that people are really the problem, but the way we got there was pretty ugly -- and which was basically the argument of some all along.  (Why not say, "I see what you're saying with radicalism Islam, but I think the problem is broader than that. And Islam has much to contribute to the solution." As opposed to: "The problem is Islam! And I'm right about it, because I care about human decency and you don't") 

 

For my part, it's obvious that Islamic regimes repress their populace, and that we should endeavor to help the innocent and the weak of those countries. No one was debating that.  There's been something of strawman being railed against, here.   

 

On the issue of terrorism, as long as our economy and our country benefits from the injustice that we help ensure around the world, it will exist.  We can ignore what motivates humans to use Islam as tool of terror; or we can probe that question, without the need to reemphasize how problematic Islam is (something we all get). 

 

We were not our better selves today. 

[ashbury]

We were not our better selves today. 

Moderator's note: without attempting to judge, nor try to guess who should be allowed the last word, I'd like to ask if we can leave the personal bickering aside at this point?

[TheLeviathan]

No, I don't think that is comparable to saying the same about racism, etc. My reason for saying this is because all racism is bad - ALL. Not all Islam is bad. Heck, you know there are liberal Muslims ... and that's probably wording it poorly because of course there are liberal racists. Hmm ... well, there are progressive, even gay Muslims. It's harmful to categorize them alongside the rest - it's just too broad.

I think you misinterpreted my reply. Racism is a human problem because of human nature. Oppressive islamic practices are the same, a bad reflection of human nature. Insofar as that, they are the same.

 

So what matters is how we respond to these reflections. Racism is always wrong. So is any other violent or oppressive system. In the Muslim world the practice of Islam is widely oppressive and too frequently violent. We have to be willing to condemn practices like that in all forms regardless of the ethnicity, sex, religion, or age of those practicing violence and oppression.

 

Too often the left shies away from that responsibility under the guise of well intentioned, but ill-thought fears of bigotry. Maajid said this well. Like it or not, many of those responses to me did exactly that. The irony in that is the point he made about the soft racism of low expectations while accusing others of bigotry. While it may feel wrong to single out the religion to some, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. The thing about conviction is that you have to have it even when it isn't comfortable.

 

Identifying Islam as the source of the oppression only identifies it as the powerful, common tool being used by misguided humans. But identifying it for what it gets at the source of the oppression rather than falsely blaming the symptoms. Reforming the source is the path to peace.

 

So if we have genuine conviction for peace and human dignity, we have to let that guide us, even if that means calling on ethnic groups, religions, nations, or anyone else to change. Convictions like peace and dignity should be demanded of all without qualification.

[formerly33]

 

I think you misinterpreted my reply. Racism is a human problem because of human nature. Oppressive islamic practices are the same, a bad reflection of human nature. Insofar as that, they are the same.

So what matters is how we respond to these reflections. Racism is always wrong. So is any other violent or oppressive system. In the Muslim world the practice of Islam is widely oppressive and too frequently violent. We have to be willing to condemn practices like that in all forms regardless of the ethnicity, sex, religion, or age of those practicing violence and oppression.

Too often the left shies away from that responsibility under the guise of well intentioned, but ill-thought fears of bigotry. Maajid said this well. Like it or not, many of those responses to me did exactly that. The irony in that is the point he made about the soft racism of low expectations while accusing others of bigotry. While it may feel wrong to single out the religion to some, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. The thing about conviction is that you have to have it even when it isn't comfortable.

Identifying Islam as the source of the oppression only identifies it as the powerful, common tool being used by misguided humans. But identifying it for what it gets at the source of the oppression rather than falsely blaming the symptoms. Reforming the source is the path to peace.

So if we have genuine conviction for peace and human dignity, we have to let that guide us, even if that means calling on ethnic groups, religions, nations, or anyone else to change. Convictions like peace and dignity should be demanded of all without qualification.

So ... if you mean oppressive Islam, why don't you say it?

 

I could do without the insinuation that I don't have a genuine conviction for peace and human dignity. Furthermore, I know there are many Muslims who feel the same way. Are they just feigning the right attitude because they don't believe the very thing they've chosen to rest their faith in is the root of the problem? It really just sounds like the people on the far, far left who say you can't be gay and Muslim, that you either have to be one or the other. Like one gay Muslim said, that's between him and God, not for mere humans to decide. Why does everything have to be so black and white?

[TheLeviathan]

So ... if you mean oppressive Islam, why don't you say it?

 

I could do without the insinuation that I don't have a genuine conviction for peace and human dignity. Furthermore, I know there are many Muslims who feel the same way. Are they just feigning the right attitude because they don't believe the very thing they've chosen to rest their faith in is the root of the problem? It really just sounds like the people on the far, far left who say you can't be gay and Muslim, that you either have to be one or the other. Like one gay Muslim said, that's between him and God, not for mere humans to decide. Why does everything have to be so black and white?

Not everything is black and white, but isn't oppression in that camp with racism?I can say oppressive Islam, but why is that necessary? I've found others that try to narrow things do so to avoid admitting the scope of the problem.

 

Just how pervasive does it need to be before we can talk that way?

 

But I want you to consider something else: I have no qualms about calling out Islam because I do so with no hate or scorn for the faith, only in its practice. Just as I call out Christians with no qualms when they preach hate against gays.

 

Does it make me a bigot when I do that also? Do you stay consistent in your condemnations? If yes, then we really agree but we're struggling to find common language to express it. If no, then perhaps you should think long and hard about why your convictions produce different results.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think I asked that well...let me try again.

 

When Christians mobilize in opposition to abortion or gay rights, do you think the left says things like "oppressive Christians" or is Christianity talked of more generally?

 

Perhaps you can see where I'm going with that but i'd like you to consider it truthfully.

[formerly33]

 

Not everything is black and white, but isn't oppression in that camp with racism?I can say oppressive Islam, but why is that necessary? I've found others that try to narrow things do so to avoid admitting the scope of the problem.

Just how pervasive does it need to be before we can talk that way?

But I want you to consider something else: I have no qualms about calling out Islam because I do so with no hate or scorn for the faith, only in its practice. Just as I call out Christians with no qualms when they preach hate against gays.

Does it make me a bigot when I do that also? Do you stay consistent in your condemnations? If yes, then we really agree but we're struggling to find common language to express it. If no, then perhaps you should think long and hard about why your convictions produce different results.

No, of course it doesn't make you a bigot. However, since when do we need to be the model of perfection before we can talk about issues that bother us? Although I'm sure I don't stay consistent in my condemnations, I think we really do agree on this subject - except, of course, when it comes to the wording. On that I still disagree with you - not so much for myself or because I think wording is as important as intent, but rather because I feel it's damaging to merely say Islam/Muslims. You've already felt the repercussions of the misunderstanding this causes. I feel like at this point you're just being stubborn and don't want to accept that maybe you were saying it wrong (that may even be too strong - perhaps poorly would be a better word). I confess, I was wrong in my assumptions about your intent. Nonetheless, I'm sure you'd still insist that you're right and I'm wrong. And honestly, making statements like that gets you nowhere.

 

Anyway, arguing about how to phrase something is kind of pointless ... I feel like at this point we should just agree to disagree and move on.

[formerly33]

 

I don't think I asked that well...let me try again.

When Christians mobilize in opposition to abortion or gay rights, do you think the left says things like "oppressive Christians" or is Christianity talked of more generally?

Perhaps you can see where I'm going with that but i'd like you to consider it truthfully.

Obviously I can see where you're going with that. The thing is, it's not just Christians who are against abortion or gay rights, so to say, "This is all because of Christians" is just plain stupid and, to be honest, close minded. To be honest, I'm sure I, too, am guilty of doing it myself - I know I am. But it's just not true, and I'm trying to knock it off.

 

Once again, supporting abortion or gay rights doesn't mean you can't be Christian or Muslim or any other religion you choose to follow. This is a lot like saying atheists can't have morals. These kinds of conclusions are mostly made by people on the far, far right and far, far left. I get more annoyed with people on the left, partly because they claim to be more open minded, but mostly because I find myself on the left side of the spectrum and hold these people to a higher standard - or have learned to not expect much from people on the far right. Or both.

[Badsmerf]

I think we're agreeing to a large extent without realizing it.

 

Here is the division. What Levi and i (bark I'm sad you left me out, I'm just slightly less crass), are trying to point out, is that the current practice of Islam is the problem. It isn't just the radicals. There are millions of followers that do inhumane things in line with current ideology.

 

I will give you the problem is the "practice" even though i very much believe the problem is the religion. And I'm not sorry about saying it. Just as i believe Christianity was/is the problem with numerous bigotry practices in our own country and spilt blood for centuries in our history. I'm an atheist though, and don't mind fighting that ideological battle.

 

While there are many that practice the faith progressively, there are not enough, and not enough in the right places. Our interactions with these Muslims (who would be called infidels and killed immediately in said regions), are tainted. Don't you guys see that? The people that are here, going about their business, letting others go about theirs, isn't who we are talking about. We aren't even narrowing this down to the groups that do jihad. The problem is far and wide, and it seems like people are arguing with this notion.

 

Now, I'll offer solutions. I'll start with my preference and most effective. End religion (kidding, not kidding though). Sanctions. I will fully stand up to whatever consequences occur from it. You want to be safe? We aren't supporting these countries anymore. Next, open borders and allow those that want to leave, to leave. Help rise up peaceful teaching of Islam. Put prominent figures on tv, radio ect. Integrate them into our society to show we have open arms. That's just a few.

[TheLeviathan]

Oh believe me, I appreciate your voice in this too Smerf.  We go way back and I have a ton of respect for your opinions, it's nice to see that you can cut out ideology and strive for this narrative to change.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I think we're agreeing to a large extent without realizing it.

Here is the division. What Levi and i (bark I'm sad you left me out, I'm just slightly less crass), are trying to point out, is that the current practice of Islam is the problem. It isn't just the radicals. There are millions of followers that do inhumane things in line with current ideology.

I will give you the problem is the "practice" even though i very much believe the problem is the religion. And I'm not sorry about saying it. Just as i believe Christianity was/is the problem with numerous bigotry practices in our own country and spilt blood for centuries in our history. I'm an atheist though, and don't mind fighting that ideological battle.

While there are many that practice the faith progressively, there are not enough, and not enough in the right places. Our interactions with these Muslims (who would be called infidels and killed immediately in said regions), are tainted. Don't you guys see that? The people that are here, going about their business, letting others go about theirs, isn't who we are talking about. We aren't even narrowing this down to the groups that do jihad. The problem is far and wide, and it seems like people are arguing with this notion.

Now, I'll offer solutions. I'll start with my preference and most effective. End religion (kidding, not kidding though). Sanctions. I will fully stand up to whatever consequences occur from it. You want to be safe? We aren't supporting these countries anymore. Next, open borders and allow those that want to leave, to leave. Help rise up peaceful teaching of Islam. Put prominent figures on tv, radio ect. Integrate them into our society to show we have open arms. That's just a few.

Sorry Bad Smerf.

[TheLeviathan]

 

On that I still disagree with you - not so much for myself or because I think wording is as important as intent, but rather because I feel it's damaging to merely say Islam/Muslims. You've already felt the repercussions of the misunderstanding this causes. 

 

Why is that damaging?  When Christians boycott gay marriage or when some ass hat like Mike Pence tries to sign discriminatory laws, do we bite our tongue about the label?  We don't hide behind goofy terms when we criticize evangelicals or christians when they do hateful things, so why should we now?  What's the distinction?

 

See, me?  I call 'em both out, because what I stand for (and against) is consistent for any creed, color, nationality, ethnicity, or otherwise.  So help me understand why this should be different.

 

Oh, and also, I'm ok with the reprecussions.  If change was easy it'd happen all the time.  Sometimes the hardest thing to do is wade into friendly fire to explain where we went wrong.  I hold no hope for the right wing on this issue, they're a lost cause.  I hope, maybe naively, that the left can still be salvaged.  Perhaps I'm wrong and I'll just keep being called a bigot by hypocrites, but sometimes the price of doing the right thing is a lot of flak along the way.

 

Once again, supporting abortion or gay rights doesn't mean you can't be Christian or Muslim or any other religion you choose to follow. This is a lot like saying atheists can't have morals. 

 

 

I agree, but that wasn't where I was going with it.  When a hardcore Christian homophobe passes a law to oppress gays (or transexuals), do left-wingers tip toe around their religion?  Not that I see.  It seems that, simply by virtue of being a largely white, powerful group that Christians are subjected to a different level of condemnation and vitriol than someone who does the same (or much, much worse) and is part of the Muslim faith.

 

Now, believe me, I shed no tears for the Christian's hurt feelings.  If you don't like being condemned, quit being a dick and oppressing people.  But I don't change my tune if it's Muslim hatred and yet....the left does.  They produce false narratives about this being "only a small percentage".  That's just false.  The small percentage are terrorists, but a VERY sizable percentage are active or complicit oppressors.  So why do we change our tune?

 

To me, therein lies my push.  A push shared by guys like Maher, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Maajid Nawaaz, Malala Yousafzai, and many others.  We need the left, the progressive on the right side of this rather than (unintentionally I believe) expecting too little out of Islam.  They find every other excuse in the book, as this thread shows, to avoid taking the religion to task.

 

So I'll go back to my first question - why the difference?

[DaveW]

I think we're agreeing to a large extent without realizing it.

 

Here is the division. What Levi and i (bark I'm sad you left me out, I'm just slightly less crass), are trying to point out, is that the current practice of Islam is the problem. It isn't just the radicals. There are millions of followers that do inhumane things in line with current ideology.

 

I will give you the problem is the "practice" even though i very much believe the problem is the religion. And I'm not sorry about saying it. Just as i believe Christianity was/is the problem with numerous bigotry practices in our own country and spilt blood for centuries in our history. I'm an atheist though, and don't mind fighting that ideological battle.

 

While there are many that practice the faith progressively, there are not enough, and not enough in the right places. Our interactions with these Muslims (who would be called infidels and killed immediately in said regions), are tainted. Don't you guys see that? The people that are here, going about their business, letting others go about theirs, isn't who we are talking about. We aren't even narrowing this down to the groups that do jihad. The problem is far and wide, and it seems like people are arguing with this notion.

 

Now, I'll offer solutions. I'll start with my preference and most effective. End religion (kidding, not kidding though). Sanctions. I will fully stand up to whatever consequences occur from it. You want to be safe? We aren't supporting these countries anymore. Next, open borders and allow those that want to leave, to leave. Help rise up peaceful teaching of Islam. Put prominent figures on tv, radio ect. Integrate them into our society to show we have open arms. That's just a few.

Millions who do inhumane pratices directly and actively?

 

No, sorry that simply isn't true, and imo is a dangerous road to go down.

 

Nobody is denying there are issues with the extremists and some of the governments and leaders that allow it, but to say millions are involved or even directly supporting ISIS in some way is just wrong.

[TheLeviathan]

Dave, that's simply not true. I wish it was. In fact, that's my hope someday, but it isn't true today.

[Badsmerf]

Millions. It is staggering, but true. Reject it if you want, the left is hell bent on keeping the conversation only on the radicals. Do some reading on it. The more I learned, the more I was shocked.

[DaveW]

Millions. It is staggering, but true. Reject it if you want, the left is hell bent on keeping the conversation only on the radicals. Do some reading on it. The more I learned, the more I was shocked.

Listen, this "do some reading on it" trope is extremely inflammatory. It's pretty clear that most of us in this thread have "read" plenty and know a decent amount of what is going on (even if we don't agree with each other). So knock it off, this Minnesota passive aggressiveness when someone disgagrees with you (or anyone) not just you etc has no place in this discussion.

 

 

IMO It has little to do with left vs right, good lord. Not everything worldwide is a democrat vs republican American issue.

 

Millions do not actively cause these issues, millions live in countries that have dictators or governments that do these actions etc, but that doesn't mean its citizens actively do those practices that hurt/maim/rape and kill innocent people.

 

That's akin to saying "10s of millions" of Americans are active in the deportation of all Mexicans, Muslims, hate gay marriage and are against women's rights just because they "vote" trump or something.

 

Again it comes down to corrupt leaders/governments who take advantage of the uneducated and poor in those specific middle eastern countries.

[DaveW]

Dave, that's simply not true. I wish it was. In fact, that's my hope someday, but it isn't true today.

Clearly we won't agree (along with some others on this thread), so we will agree to disagree on that.

 

If you think millions of Muslims are actively involved in these sort of extremism that ISIS is involved in, I don't know what I or others can do to swing you to the other side (likewise, I doubt anything you can say will swing us)

[PseudoSABR]

 

Millions. It is staggering, but true. Reject it if you want, the left is hell bent on keeping the conversation only on the radicals. Do some reading on it. The more I learned, the more I was shocked.

I don't think any one doubts that there is latent support among millions of Muslims; but active support? In what form? Twitter? I don't know if that's something to base policy on...

 

As much as this conversation has been about what the left wishes to deny; for great swath of this thread people had trouble acknowledging any kind of moderate element of Islam.  So there's a problem of framing on both sides. 

[DaveW]

I don't think any one doubts that there is latent support among millions of Muslims; but active support? In what form? Twitter? I don't know if that's something to base policy on...

 

As much as this conversation has been about what the left wishes to deny; for great swath of this thread people had trouble acknowledging any kind of moderate element of Islam. So there's a problem of framing on both sides.

Well said.

[Badsmerf]

In this case, I do believe the left tries to keep conversations about radicals only, and it misses the point. I say this, because it is forced down our throats. Frankly, the gop is more concerned with what Obama says than how to actually fix the problem.

 

And, I'd like to point out, if those millions of Americans didn't want to be all those things, they should have voted for someone else. That is exactly what I think of those people.

[Badsmerf]

Are we really getting critical about what is active and what isn't active in regards to supporting extreme actions. Btw, Isis is radical not extreme. I'd consider extreme to be more moderate in that they don't go out and do suicide attacks in other countries.

 

This is exactly what we're trying to get across, the problem isn't just the terrorist. Narrowing the discussion to only terrorists is only discussing the cough and not the cancer.

[PseudoSABR]

 

In this case, I do believe the left tries to keep conversations about radicals only, and it misses the point. I say this, because it is forced down our throats. Frankly, the gop is more concerned with what Obama says than how to actually fix the problem.

And, I'd like to point out, if those millions of Americans didn't want to be all those things, they should have voted for someone else. That is exactly what I think of those people.

But there's good reason to try to keep the conversation limited to those people we have real evidence that are involved in terror regimes.  I think we're already on the slippery slope of roping in far more people than actually have credible acts of blame.  

 

We agree that there's more than just radical Muslims who foster Islamic terror, but how wide need we cast that net in order for you or Levi not to decry liberal blindness (or whatever).   You guys act as if there's no danger of the slippery slope or actually alienating the very people who might be able to bring about the reform you wish.

[TheLeviathan]

Clearly we won't agree (along with some others on this thread), so we will agree to disagree on that.

If you think millions of Muslims are actively involved in these sort of extremism that ISIS is involved in, I don't know what I or others can do to swing you to the other side (likewise, I doubt anything you can say will swing us)

You changed the terms again. The actual number of active KKK members is small, does that mean the millions of racists in the country aren't part of the problem?

 

Millions of Muslims support oppression and many degrees of violence. Real, active oppression of women, minorities, gays, and others.

 

This is a fact Dave, your willingness to accept it or not doesn't change that.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Are we really getting critical about what is active and what isn't active in regards to supporting extreme actions. Btw, Isis is radical not extreme. I'd consider extreme to be more moderate in that they don't go out and do suicide attacks in other countries.

This is exactly what we're trying to get across, the problem isn't just the terrorist. Narrowing the discussion to only terrorists is only discussing the cough and not the cancer.

Yeah, and the problem is not exclusively Islam either.  There's a host of factors that contribute to the groundswell of terrorism: non-radical Muslims, history of the region, recent wars, Israel policy, the global economy, immigration policies, etc. etc. etc.   So much of the thread was spent trying to get Levi to back of his exclusive, only-real-root-of-the-problem rhetoric, which is far more unhelpful than resisting such rhetoric.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you worry about alienating the West Baptist church? Or are they just hateful douche bags that deserve condemnation?

 

I'll ask again, why the distinction in treatment?

[Badsmerf]

I agree Levi is part of the problem.

 

We have to venture on the hypothetical slope. If we want change we can't continue to be afraid off it. The second amendment people think it's a slippery slope when if you start any kind of increase in gun laws. Any. It's unreal.

[PseudoSABR]

 

We have to venture on the hypothetical slope. If we want change we can't continue to be afraid off it. The second amendment people think it's a slippery slope when if you start any kind of increase in gun laws. Any. It's unreal.

That's fair and sensible.  I found myself akin to thinking that religions don't kill people, people kill people.  Ugh.  I think if we can acknowledge that religion (Islam) can become a tool of terrorism, just as a gun can be come be tool of terrorism/murder.  And so deserves scrutiny beyond just those who are implicated in any actual scheme.  The big difference is of course Islam is an idea, a belief, and an AR-15 is a tangible good.  Nonetheless, we should endeavor to help Islam to reform.

 

If we're serious about (along with some of the things you mention) we should look for institutions and practices within Islam to serve as models for such reform.  And we need to be very smart about throwing our support behind any parties, and not be so damn self-serving.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Do you worry about alienating the West Baptist church? Or are they just hateful douche bags that deserve condemnation?

I'll ask again, why the distinction in treatment?

I'd worry about alienating Christians by blaming Christianity for the emergence of West Baptist's propaganda (whatever truth there might be to it).  The analogy you seem to be making is west-baptist:Christians::more-than-just-radical-Islam:moderate-Islam. No ones worried about alienating the radicals...