Back we go... | Ever onwards...
I don't think my scorn for religion has entirely gone unnoticed, dear readers, but nonetheless I had considered most of the particular fuss directed at Islam to largely be the result of Daily Mail readers acting hysterical and overblown propaganda. I think I'm forced to revise that opinion.
Bitches be crazy, yo. (As Irwin would say).
I've been watching a muslim forum for a while now and some of the 'mad, whack shit' that goes down in there just staggers my mind.
Open and common praise for Bin Ladin.
Advising people who are unwell not to break their Ramadan fasting - despite (non muslim) doctor's opinions to the contrary and in one case despite a difficult pregnancy and anaemia.
Telling a convert to divorce her husband because he hasn't converted.
Approval of beheadings.
And this is just the moderates...
I haven't stuck my oar in yet but I've watched what happens when someone does and it literally IS cries of 'infidel', at least when the Sunni, Shia and Nation of Islam types aren't all laying into each other anyway. There's no debate, there's not even an attempt to make their case, just screaming and lots of TYPING ALL IN CAPS.
I mean fucking hell, their moderates are as bad as Westboro baptists!
- Status of Brain Meats:
surprised
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
_grimtales_- _grimtales_
- Postmortem Studios
Comments
Does this mean that, in the mission to convert the whole world to atheism, you've identified a hierarchy of targets? In other words, would the world be improved more (in your opinion) by converting one of these than converting (say) an Anglican?
I do have a hierarchy, Christianity is at the top, then Islam and so on downwards. Its a complex rating system based upon militancy, proximity and threat on an ongoing basis.
That was what I observed. The fact that the people banging on were both intelligent and trained in rational disciplines was an interesting contrast for me. It made it very, very obvious that they did not question or examine what they received from the imams.
I do have a hierarchy, Christianity is at the top, then Islam and so on downwards. Its a complex rating system based upon militancy, proximity and threat on an ongoing basis.
Would you mind giving us some insight into the complexities of that rating system? As I understand the current situation in the UK, radical Islam is more militant; closer; and more of a threat to an ordinary UK citizen than Anglicanism.
I understand that for your American readers radical Christianity is a threat, and that atheists are discriminated against over there, but neither of us live in countries that are that intolerant of atheism.
Regarding the rating system what I'm fighting to defend, if you will, is the modern, advanced, secular west. It isn't perfect by any stretch but it is socially liberal, progressive, tends to place a pretty high value on science and progress and so forth.
I do combine Christianity into one for purposes of the rating, as I do with the sects of other faiths. Overall I think the problem is faith itself but prioritising specific threats is, I think, a more pragmatic way to go about it.
Christianity is more of a threat in the US, but that same set of problems is being felt elsewhere, most strongly here. The academy schools - for example. A small but growing anti-abortion movement and a slow but steady shift to a more evangelical form of Christianity. Islam doesn't carry the same societal threat as these problems do.
Except that many of those values you want to defend were put in place by people motivated by Protestant Christianity. The social advances that made Britain a free place (before Blair et al got their hands on your once-free country) were put in place throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by people who were motivated by religion. The change in relationship between Pope, King and State that characterised the C16 and C17 is clearly motivated by a desire for religious freedom. Less clearly, the thinking of the changes in the C18 are also made with an eye on religion: that can be seen by reading the writings of the US Founding Fathers, for example.
The only clearly atheist example of social change in that timeframe is the French Revolution. And that finished up with the Great Terror, and Napoleon restoring order ... and the churches.
Modern British life may be secular -- Britain is one of the least religious countries in the world -- but it is important to remember the error of mistaking coincidence for causality. It is also worth noting that those values we held dear are fast being eroded in modern secular Britain.
I do combine Christianity into one for purposes of the rating, as I do with the sects of other faiths. Overall I think the problem is faith itself but prioritising specific threats is, I think, a more pragmatic way to go about it.
Unfortunately to people who do not share your radical view that "the problem is faith itself" the notion that Anglicanism is more of a threat than radical Islam makes you seem a bit odd. The Christians haven't been bombing in Britain since the 1600s: and even that wasn't the Anglicans.
If you are going to be pragmatic, you might do better to separate the different cults within Christianity and Islam. If you are not going to be pragmatic, of course, then by all means rant away. :-)
Christianity is more of a threat in the US, but that same set of problems is being felt elsewhere, most strongly here.
I don't believe that Britain has a bigger problem with Christianity interfering with its laws than other countries. It certainly doesn't have a bigger problem than other countries when it comes to religion in general. You need to read more international news.
The academy schools - for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/educ
A small but growing anti-abortion movement...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/relig
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4
...and a slow but steady shift to a more evangelical form of Christianity. Islam doesn't carry the same societal threat as these problems do.
I wouldn't be too bothered about people who claim to belong to a religion but can't be bothered to get out of bed to attend their local services. The local priests and imams haven't yet found a way to get the mind-control rays to them while they are still in bed.
And by that measure, Islam is a significant religion in your country, and one that is every bit as evangelical as Christianity.
You're specifying Anglicanism when I'm talking about Christianity in general, which is a touch disingenuous, though Anglicanism does interfere more directly in politics and it's Anglicans they wheel out to wring their hands over any social issue.
While Islam is increasing and rising in 'points' up the scale it is in no way such a cultural influence or threat to the secular west as a whole as native Christianity is, precisely because it is so repugnant and rejected. Christianity retains an element of respectability that makes it more of a threat for actual change.
Blowing up a few dozen people acts against them, the Reg Vardy schools are far more of a concern for me than a few bearded nutters blowing up trains.
Seriously. If you're open and commonly praising bin Laden, I don't think you're a "moderate Muslim" any more. And advising people not to break fast when it may be detrimental to their health? That's just stupid, bad advice.
I don't even need to get to the last two points. The third one's just really bad relationship advice, and the fourth one is good advice when the alternatives were hanging, drawing and quartering.
Dude, it's the fucking Internet. No one's a "moderate anything" on the Internet. We're all special snowflakes in here.
Sounds like they're listening to some seriously fucked up and fundamentalist Imams.
Yeah, I have a co-worker who is diabetic, and another who is Muslim.
Either these people are being fed a line of shit from these imams, or they (the imams and/or the people) are seriously misinterpreting things. But hey, it's not like misinterpreting things in a religion would be a new thing, would it?
A couple of people in my kung fu class train without water during Ramadan. That's nuts enough, much less getting pregnant women to fast or encouraging the ill to refuse medication. >:-(
As has been pointed out above, the Koran specifically lists very sensible instances of when it is acceptable, sensible, encouraged and permitted to break fast. Similarly, there's a section in the Torah which says something along the lines of "Keep kosher is you can, but don't starve yourself to death as a result of doing so, because that's just stupid."
What really worries me is the success that radical immams are having in contuining their work by radicalising the youths they are preaching to. Of course, it doesn't help that they've got the clusterfsck that is US Military policy as a massive propaganda tool to help them on their way toward creating a new model army of martyrdom.