|
Main Paineframe posted:If it's the responsibility of immigrants to integrate into the culture of the country they enter, then why aren't all Norwegians culturally Sami? Shouldn't they have integrated into the dominant culture, rather than turning it into a melting pot by retaining their own separate, alien culture? Let's not even talk about the legacy of colonialism, where Europeans seemed more interested in exploiting cultures all over the world than in integrating with them. To suddenly discover a previously-nonexistent love for integration when they're the "natives" facing an inflow of outsiders rings hollow as all hell. What's funny is that you don't get that this is precisely the point of the right wing. Their point is that Norwegians are NOT all Sami (I mean, supposing the Sami were in southern Scandinavia in 2000 BC and then pushed north, which may totally not be the case). Their point is that by NOT requiring the "Norwegian immigrants" to adapt to Sami culture, that Sami culture was eventually destroyed by demographic change. This is a terrible example, but substitute "Celtic" and "Anglo Saxon" above, as appropriate, and it becomes more apt. I think that's a racist way of thought, since there's no reason the immigrants can't adopt their new host country's culture, but I do not think that culture-ism is a bad thing, since anyone can choose to change their own culture and that, to some extent, they should be required to. They should be required to learn the native language (or one of them) in the country they move to. They should generally adopt the customs (e.g. shake hands with women, not shake hands with women, bowing) of their host nation. I'm not going to move to Japan and be like "yeah I'm not going to bow to a superior, that makes it seem as if you're a better person than me, so let's shake hands instead". I'm going to bow, and so should you, and so should Obama (they can shake hands if the emperor ever comes to the US). The thing is: this is the majority opinion in basically all of Europe, so if you want to change it, you have to come up with better arguments than "you're a culture elitist". Which is a supremely ironic charge, because I did it myself. Saladman fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Nov 5, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:We ARE arguing about the goal posts It's not hypocritical. Norway can't get rid of Anders Breivik because he's Norwegian. If some "Breivik Fan #1 4Ever" like David Duke wanted to move to any country in Europe, they are (a) unlikely to give him a residence visa in the first place (many even blocked his normal tourist visa), and (b) if he somehow got one, he would never pass a citizenship exam, for the countries that have a cultural component to that exam. I'm not sure how prevalent that is in Europe, but e.g. Switzerland has one. The problem is you can't set any specific goal posts. What if a super devout Muslim guy won't shake hands with women and wears a djellaba everywhere, but otherwise he's super cool and tolerant and not pushy of his religion on others at all, and has a bunch of local Swiss (male) friends? Then he'd probably get citizenship. There's just no just way to make it a list of criteria to check off, like Canada's immigration system or whatever. Maybe Hungary would be OK with it, I don't know. I'm not speaking for all of Europe. Freedom of religion isn't even particularly practiced in Switzerland (e.g. E: Actually it's true, it's not exactly equal: some hardline Catholic priest would have an easier time getting citizenship than some hardline Salafist imam, but... lots of hardline Salafist imams have been and are given citizenship. Hell, Said Ramadan got citizenship in Geneva, and his brother (nephew?) is still one of the leading figures at the Geneva mosque today, despite so many countries branding the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist organization" recently (even though it's pretty overblown). Also, re: culture-ism, I don't think that countries are even required TO make it equal. That being a commonly-held belief is really a "new world" phenomenon because of the history there. Which, by the way, is a history of immigrants coming and destroying the local culture, which is far right wing's people's entire argument, so it's not a very good counterargument. (I think that's a racist viewpoint, since gradual, peaceful immigration is not the same as massive warfare invasion, but anyway.) Saladman fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Those are tiny minorities though, in the most culturally powerful country in the world. Also, parallel societies which the majority happily ignores because they only/largely oppress people within the group, from what I gather. (This extent of this issue might vary a lot between different communities.) The US's largest immigrant group by far is from a country which has been called a failed state within the last decade. And yet for some reason the only people who find issue with that are David Duke fans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The US's largest immigrant group by far is from a country which has been called a failed state within the last decade. And yet for some reason the only people who find issue with that are David Duke fans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm not sure what your point is. Squalid posted:
(Should also note that in this thread, "Assimilate" is being used as code for "act white/your relevant white sub-nationality") computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Yo akhi it's Qur'an.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Freedom of religion isn't even particularly practiced in Switzerland (e.g. Mormons are not officially recognized). Huh. It's a bit of a side topic (especially since I hypothesize that Mormons, like Baha'i, are very iffy as far as being classed as People of the Book, and this is coming from a Hindu  ), but could you elaborate on this? Google's not being an enormous amount of help other than telling me that A) there are a surprisingly nonzero number of Mormons in Switzerland and B) Swiss visa laws mostly exclude non-European missionaries, which includes most Mormon missionaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
I don't think assimilation and integration are the same thing. The first is realigning one's cultural/religious identity with that of the local population*, while the latter is merely adopting the same manner of approach to how your personal identity interacts with society as a whole. It's the difference between demanding Muslim refugees become Christians if they settle in Sweden, and merely expecting that they adopt the Swedish approach to religion and keep their faith or lack thereof a private thing in every day life. *In the context of immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I don't think assimilation and integration are the same thing. The first is realigning one's cultural/religious identity with that of the local population*, while the latter is merely adopting the same manner of approach to how your personal identity interacts with society as a whole. A lot of the latter is culture. For example, how someone dresses or eating pork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of the latter is culture. For example, how someone dresses or eating pork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Like I said, integrating is easier said than done in that kind of environment. Kinda hard to not draw attention to your religious identity when people in positions of authority actively try to make it difficult for you to practice your faith in a private manner. I mean, look at something of the suggestions for cultural incompatibilities earlier - someone mentioned beard style, even. If having slightly different facial hair or not eating pork is enough to show that you "aren't integrating" based solely on this small things, it's no wonder people think it's impossible for outsiders to integrate into their society. The standard for integration is bizarre in that case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:people who draw Mohammed does not belong to Europe. Everyone seemed to ignore this statement. Am I the only one that feels differently? Did I misunderstand what you mean here Caps? You are advocating for a moderate Islam but a cartoon drawing of your prophet should have people kicked out of countries that are primarily secular(or at the very least not Islamic states). Side note: I don't want to start a flame war, for some reason all my posts in SA seem to degrade into them. I want to explain something first, and then I will get back on topic with the thread. I think a lot of you are missing something very basic. Humans, at a biological level, form groups. If a society is homogeneous, humans will still find a way to form lines between different groups of people and stick with them. This becomes very easy to do when the 'other' is dressed differently or behaves in a manner which can be easily discerned. From that point, once you are outside the 'group', you are then open to discrimination. Whether is it overt or covert. Whether is it implicit and explicit. Conscious or unconscious. Fighting these biases is good. It moves our society forward. But I feel like many people are putting too much effort into it. Pushing people too far. Which is why we get people like Donald Trump, or to a lesser extent, why organizations like the KKK exist.(I am not condoning them by any means, I believe they are symptoms) You're not fighting ideas or opinions, you are actually fighting millions of years of evolution. At times, the best we are going to be able to do is to be made aware of our biases and try to stop ourselves from expressing them. But some people seem to go farther, and to push people past what they are willing to even consciously accept. Not everyone is ready to be that open. It's a fine line between pushing a society forward to be more accepting, and brow beating them at every turn. It seems to me, that societies around the world are feeling brow beat.(America and the UK especially) To that point, the more you stand out, the more you will be discriminated against. You can't expect to dress differently in a society and be accepted fully by them. It's a great goal, but I don't think it will ever really happen in our lifetimes(once again you are fighting how we evolved). So when speaking of integration or being accepted by a society, the best way to do so is to make the differences between you and that society as minimal as possible. And certainly wearing your religion on your sleeve will make it easy to spot you. People always say, don't judge a book by it's cover, but that's just the way humans operate. Even in highschool where for my school at least, we were all white, we still found a way to carve out clicks. We weren't at each others throats by any means, but we did form our own groups and those groups shared common behaviors, and people didn't tend to flow between them much. So a more moderate Islam would help. But it just isn't what most Islamic people are ready for. And depending on what you decide to shed and what you do not, you may very well still stand out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:01
|
|
BAD POSTER ALERT!
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I mean, look at something of the suggestions for cultural incompatibilities earlier - someone mentioned beard style, even. If having slightly different facial hair or not eating pork is enough to show that you "aren't integrating" based solely on this small things, it's no wonder people think it's impossible for outsiders to integrate into their society. The standard for integration is bizarre in that case. The standards are bizarre because culture (from art down to customs) is largely arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I'm not liking that some peeps are believing that islam is somehow exceptional, when that is simply not the case. It has a temporary advantage, in that it's neither criticized honestly in western countries (out of fear of legitimizing bigotry) or in islamic countries (because such criticism is illegal/punishable). But that 'halo' won't last forever. We already have a state currently collapsing, that considers itself a caliphate - when it falls apart, journalists are going to go into former ISIS territory, and islamism is going to get some real media attention. Consequently, Islam will lose it's 'exotic orientalist' flavor that it currently has to some people, and it will be seen for what it is, just another religion that happens to have a lot of very conservative elements (which is why it attracts 'pious' individuals, because 'piety' is a signal for social conformity and correlated with social conservatism). That's it. It doesn't highlight any flaws of liberalism, by any metric you care to use liberalism performs much much better. Liberalism/modernism will outlast it, no questions. The only issue is what happens along the way.computer parts posted:(Should also note that in this thread, "Assimilate" is being used as code for "act white/your relevant white sub-nationality")
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:Everyone seemed to ignore this statement. Am I the only one that feels differently? Did I misunderstand what you mean here Caps? You are advocating for a moderate Islam but a cartoon drawing of your prophet should have people kicked out of countries that are primarily secular(or at the very least not Islamic states). Yes, you have poor reading comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm not liking that some peeps are believing that islam is somehow exceptional, when that is simply not the case. It has a temporary advantage, in that it's neither criticized honestly in western countries (out of fear of legitimizing bigotry) or in islamic countries (because such criticism is illegal/punishable). But that 'halo' won't last forever. We already have a state currently collapsing, that considers itself a caliphate - when it falls apart, journalists are going to go into former ISIS territory, and islamism is going to get some real media attention. Consequently, Islam will lose it's 'exotic orientalist' flavor that it currently has to some people, and it will be seen for what it is, just another religion that happens to have a lot of very conservative elements (which is why it attracts 'pious' individuals, because 'piety' is a signal for social conformity and correlated with social conservatism). That's it. It doesn't highlight any flaws of liberalism, by any metric you care to use liberalism performs much much better. Liberalism/modernism will outlast it, no questions. The only issue is what happens along the way. I don't necessarily agree with Shadi Hamid, I just thought the book would be interesting since he has the same concerns as Helsing. I think you are wrong about it attracting people who want social conformity, though - for most people converting in the west, it's about the least conforming thing you can do. A lot of the time people lose family and friends over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:(Should also note that in this thread, "Assimilate" is being used as code for "act white/your relevant white sub-nationality") Yeah and so? (Or the converse, a hypothetical immigrant to Saudi Arabia would also be expected to act Saudi, though unless you're some super rich dude who doesn't need to give a poo poo anyway I don't see why anyone would voluntarily migrate there)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Huh. Sorry, complete mental block earlier. I meant Scientologists. In any case they are still allowed buildings but they don't get to be counted when people mark their religion (for giving tax money to churches) and I don't think they're texhnically allowed to call themselves a church or religious instruction or get any similar benefits that wouldnt be given to an international organization. A fair number of other well known but minor sects are not recognized here (not the same as banned). I can't certainly name them off the top of my head. E: apparently I'm wrong, and they built a huge new church last year (after substantial legal proceedings) and have gotten at least some state protection and recognition as a "new religion" (don't know what that means legally). Still, it took them a long time and a ton of organization, it's not nearly as easy as the US where anyone can get recognized as a religious organization with minor effort. I've never particularly researched it though, I've just always heard people to refer to it as a clandestine American scam operation. In any case, even New mosques can't have minerets, and the call to prayer has been banned for lIke... forever. So "freedom" of religion. Saladman fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
1. This has already ended in tears. Repeatedly. 2. A "European" Islam would be quickly denounced as fake by extremists, so it's never going to work. 3. Both right-wing and left-wing agree that only reactionary, intolerant Islam is genuine and legitimate. On the right-wing it's because "moderate" Islam is just taqiyya and trojan horse stuff and it's important to show that Islam is always the enemy; on the left-wing it's because "moderate" Islam is a patronizing neocolonialist invention trying to force Western values on minorities, and it's important to show that you're very progressive by tolerating the intolerance as long as it's not white intolerance. Liberal Muslims (I much prefer this term to that of moderate, moderate always imply non-totalness, a moderate Muslim is not fully a Muslim, so you're just validating the extremists' beliefs) will find no allies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:Everyone seemed to ignore this statement. Am I the only one that feels differently? Did I misunderstand what you mean here Caps? You are advocating for a moderate Islam but a cartoon drawing of your prophet should have people kicked out of countries that are primarily secular(or at the very least not Islamic states). You're misunderstanding what he wrote. The people he wants out are [people who kill homosexuals] and [people who kill people who draw Mohammed] and not [people who kill homosexuals] and [people who draw Mohammed].
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Hey you know what could be good about fostering European Islam? Not giving literally billions of dollars to corrupt theocratic petro-states so they can use that to build mosques and send preachers to spread their poisonous ideology or we could rag on some Muslims, sure
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
Pull up your pants, stop listening to rap music, and talk without an accent. It's a trap though, because quite frequently it's just an excuse to say "you don't belong here, go away". computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Hey you know what could be good about fostering European Islam? Not giving literally billions of dollars to corrupt theocratic petro-states so they can use that to build mosques and send preachers to spread their poisonous ideology So fostering a European Islam would end our dependence on hydrocarbons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah and so? (Or the converse, a hypothetical immigrant to Saudi Arabia would also be expected to act Saudi, though unless you're some super rich dude who doesn't need to give a poo poo anyway I don't see why anyone would voluntarily migrate there) Gee, why would be it be wrong to assume everyone in an entire country acts the same? Like let's take the Danish town mandating pork as an example: what if I'm white, but vegetarian? I get hosed over just as much as a Muslim/Jewish/etc immigrant. That type of thinking mandates a cultural stereotype to live up towards for both immigrants and native born. Because otherwise people will say "well Joe Dane doesn't have to eat pork, why do I have to?" computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So fostering a European Islam would end our dependence on hydrocarbons? No, fostering an European Islam would be another of the thousand positive byproducts of ending our dependence on hydrocarbons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You don't have to make immigrants assimilate, see Ultra-Orthodox jews A good analogy since Haredi communities have been plagued by sexual abuse scandals fanned by an unwillingness to deal with the secular civil justice system especially when community leaders are the ones accused. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3 for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Those are tiny minorities though, in the most culturally powerful country in the world. Also, parallel societies which the majority happily ignores because they only/largely oppress people within the group, from what I gather. (This extent of this issue might vary a lot between different communities.) True, however I think they illustrate how some of our preconceptions regarding what we believe immigrants should be handled may not reflect reality. Haredi Jews may be a weird community with serious internal problems, but the same insularity that produces these differences also limits their impact on the wider society. Further I think they are illustrative of why I don't think many modern fears about non-assimilation are unjustified. Parallel societies like these generally practice extreme customs that effectively cut them off from almost all social, economic, and educational contact with outsiders except in specific controlled contexts, and that is not an accident. Non-assimilation by immigrant groups is not a default circumstance, rather it requires organized and concerted effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Squalid posted:True, however I think they illustrate how some of our preconceptions regarding what we believe immigrants should be handled may not reflect reality. Haredi Jews may be a weird community with serious internal problems, but the same insularity that produces these differences also limits their impact on the wider society. Squalid posted:Non-assimilation by immigrant groups is not a default circumstance, rather it requires organized and concerted effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:No, fostering an European Islam would be another of the thousand positive byproducts of ending our dependence on hydrocarbons. It will be tough to get China to stop buying Saudi oil, having to shut down all their factories and put tens of millions out of work. They could give some tips on how to deal with radical mosques. Unless you just invented a new energy source to completely replace hydrocarbons in which case you just destroyed the economies of the Middle East and some other very large nations like Nigeria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:It will be tough to get China to stop buying Saudi oil, having to shut down all their factories and put tens of millions out of work. They could give some tips on how to deal with radical mosques. Hydrocarbon dependency shouldn't mean that the current situation, -in which a regressive regime has great power over shaping the sort of imams that take up positions in mosques to serve the believers there- is something that we should accept. Reducing our dependence on oil could be the necessary change to make standing up to the Saudis on this politically feasible for European politicians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Indigofreak posted:Everyone seemed to ignore this statement. Am I the only one that feels differently? Did I misunderstand what you mean here Caps? You are advocating for a moderate Islam but a cartoon drawing of your prophet should have people kicked out of countries that are primarily secular(or at the very least not Islamic states). Yes you misunderstood. People who want to kill people who draw the Prophet do not belong here. Indigofreak posted:Side note: I don't want to start a flame war, for some reason all my posts in SA seem to degrade into them. I am not missing this at all. People will always find group cohesion. I believe that religion is so important and basic that we should minimize it as basis for group discrimination. True believers will not give up on their religion, and so forced segregation is destructive. On the other hand people can also be united by ideals that are found in the union of their religions, or which are outside of it. I remember fondly my time in the USA when on certain days people would celebrate things side-by-side, Christians, Jews and Muslims. This basically doesn't exist in Europe. A moderate Islam will decrease the differences between the people because it increases the congruence with European values. Yes, political extremists and rightwingers are on the rise and they are not congruent with European values themselves. But these will never accept Muslims as European anyway, so we should focus on values. Because these values work very well and are attractive as well as institutionalized, there is a good chance of adaption by Muslims. Furthermore, if discrimination hits less the moderates and more the extremists (so the opposite of now), there is a practical evolutionary advantage for liberal Muslims in society. The success of this undertaking is not determined because there exists NO non-conservative Islamic organization of import in Europe. I am sure that if it did, many would see it as attractive alternative. Mormon Star Wars posted:I think you are wrong about it attracting people who want social conformity, though - for most people converting in the west, it's about the least conforming thing you can do. A lot of the time people lose family and friends over it. This should be highlighted because it is really true. Cat Mattress posted:2. A "European" Islam would be quickly denounced as fake by extremists, so it's never going to work. On the other hand, giving an alternative to conservative practice is exactly the point. Because as long as conservatives have all money and power, and moderates are fought on both sides, a liberal Islam will not just spring into existence. Cat Mattress posted:3. Both right-wing and left-wing agree that only reactionary, intolerant Islam is genuine and legitimate. On the right-wing it's because "moderate" Islam is just taqiyya and trojan horse stuff and it's important to show that Islam is always the enemy; on the left-wing it's because "moderate" Islam is a patronizing neocolonialist invention trying to force Western values on minorities, and it's important to show that you're very progressive by tolerating the intolerance as long as it's not white intolerance. Liberal Muslims (I much prefer this term to that of moderate, moderate always imply non-totalness, a moderate Muslim is not fully a Muslim, so you're just validating the extremists' beliefs) will find no allies. I agree with these problems. Our best bet is to continue with university based research in Europe that has seen success already. On the one hand, it is beneficial if it gets rapport with traditional non-extremist authorities outside of Europe and to a degree we should strive for cooperation here, but I believe for acceptance in Europe it has to be an indigenous development by Muslim scholars from Europe. And the development of these people has just started (there are, literally, a handful in Germany and they are pretty much all liberal). These people need more of a voice. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Why do you think that the majority of Muslims listen to extremists? One of the top Sunni authorities has just recently issued the advice that hijabs/scarfs are optional because they are customary and not based on scripture. Nothing of what ISIS says is considered meaningful by like almost any Muslim in the world. Yes, world Islam is too little liberal and too conservative. But the mean is not an extremist position. Religious moderation is what happens when the forces of modernity make certain religious truth-claims irreconcilable with reality. You're not going to find inspiration for moderation in the religion itself, and the religious justification for it is always post hoc mental gymnastics and self-delusion. On this point, at least, secularists and Islamists can agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Yeah, why exactly should European states promote "moderate Islam" or any other religion, when they could be promoting rational thought, humanism and atheism instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:You seem naive if you think that there's such a thing as a "top Sunni authority" who can speak authoritatively for the faith as a whole, or that "nothing of what ISIS says is considered meaningful" when support for the group is as high as 8% in Turkey (with another 19% in the 'dont know' column, as though the jury is still out). 19% of US Muslims believe suicide bombing is sometimes justified. 52% of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal and a third think polygamy should be legalized. You keep talking as though as though if people only read the books properly then we would have a moderate and progressive Islam perfectly in step with Western culture and mores. The truth that all moderates refuse to internalize is that if God exists, and his books are divinely inspired, then the extreme literalists like ISIS are front of the queue for seats in heaven while moderates like yourself are spending eternity in a lake of fire -- and just as well for everyone else that moderates remain delusional on this point. It is good that the trump tutelage recognizes that ISIS must be extremely literalist, based on his deep personal understanding of both ISIS' theological beliefs and the Quran, and not at all on the assumption that all religions are basically just American Megachurch Evangelicalism as it has existed since ~1980. Because if in fact ISIS was not extremely literalist, and what little it bothers with theology was in fact a radical deviation from Wahhabism, itself a radical deviation from Sunni Islam as practiced literally everywhere else in the world, your facile horseshoe-theory-but-for-god-botherers view of the universe would be hopelessly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Would this video decrying muslim responses to South Park depictions of Muhammad - be considered hate speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEvwfvRpqCA I don't know whether to agree or disagree with this bashing. Grouchio fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:The truth that all moderates refuse to internalize is that if God exists, and his books are divinely inspired, then the extreme literalists like ISIS are front of the queue for seats in heaven while moderates like yourself are spending eternity in a lake of fire -- and just as well for everyone else that moderates remain delusional on this point. good trolling, I was almost gonna reply but it'll be the end of the thread. Please consult any source by actual Muslims or Koran scholars ( and not your favorite right wing site "TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM" and also not your evangelical US pamphlet you found somewhere) on the matter to see how wrong you are thank yee and kindly leave this thread alone
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It is good that the trump tutelage recognizes that ISIS must be extremely literalist, based on his deep personal understanding of both ISIS' theological beliefs and the Quran, and not at all on the assumption that all religions are basically just American Megachurch Evangelicalism as it has existed since ~1980.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
I am giving you a hint: ISIS is doing mostly thangs which are explicitly forbidden in the Koran and that's not even up for interpretation. The smallest group of wackos does not stand for the whole of religion even if it is the only one fitting your narrative. To think that ISIS is somehow the most literal interpretation (they are not, they have to use extreme handwringing and reinterpretation to justify anything, if they bother at all) shows that you know nothing about Islam and your perspective is entirely build on analogy to fundamentalist Christians or Jews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:good trolling, I was almost gonna reply but it'll be the end of the thread. Please consult any source by actual Muslims or Koran scholars ( and not your favorite right wing site "TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM" and also not your evangelical US pamphlet you found somewhere) on the matter to see how wrong you are thank yee and kindly leave this thread alone You want to talk about a European Islam, but you chafe at people suggesting what's really needed is that Islam becomes as powerless and superficial as European Christianity is to most "Christians", and you don't want to be honest about Islam's ugly side. Precisely what does a European Islam look like to you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
My god extremists exist shut it down Only long bearded, body armored, gun toting ISIS infantrymen are real muslims Holy poo poo 1.6 billion people are wrong their values of a fair society that doesnt kill everone on sight are just as valid as the opposite So wrong All of them Uncomfortable truths Now please defend the validity of the beliefs of King Leopold and various exploitative colonialists. After all they held them, and that is enough by your metric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:31
|
|
