Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Frumple]

I rather imagine TD1 was talking about actual countries. Daesh is as much a country as my cat's left nut.

And my cat is a tortoiseshell. Those don't come with nuts.

... also, why is this discussion happening here? Shouldn't it be in one of the politics threads, or armchair general or some shite?

[TD1]

Oh yea, the only shite we're allowed to talk about here is Shiite. Haha. See? Pun? Ahh, I'm a laugh a minute.

But yea, politics bad, four legs good.

[Rolan7]

Discussing the political effects of modern religious states and organizations made a nice change from criticizing the Bible, I thought.

I guess the Europol thread got locked over this, but the discussion's stayed pretty cool here.

[Orange Wizard]

Clearly this is because I am an excellent moderator.

[Bohandas]

But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.

Well, there's this oft-linked article arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.

That's just one theory, though, and there are probably more nuanced ones. Like, for example, there's this absolutely brilliant article that I'm reading right now...

I disagree with some of the terminology of that article. The "suspicious" axis would be better labeled "paranoid".

Basically the social justice movement is almost like a communicable form of paranoid schizophrenia, complete with delusions of persecution and the sense of vast faceless conspiracies lurking just betond the edge of preception. (The Islamophobes and radical islamofascists are like people who have somehow "caught" insanity too, though the islamofascists delusions are more of a grandiose variety and the Islamophobes delusionary bogeyman is actually merely the mispreception of several real conspiracies as being both a single monolithic entity and several orders of magnitude larger than they really are.)

[Loud Whispers]

Clearly this is because I am an excellent moderator.

I love you dog faced orange wizard

As an aside, the Muslim religion was really quite something back in the day. Helped learning, furthered philosophy and medicine.

And then Mongols
Suddenly very many Mongols
Reset the clock, it's Mongol O'clock

Well, there's this oft-linked article arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.

It has never ceased to bring wonderment to me how issues like court trials of suspected murder with absolutely zero political connections could become political partisan issues

I mean, that almost makes sense, doesn't it? Uncle Sam professes his love for you and stabs you in the back, whereas the Klansman waves a noose in front of your face and tells what he's going to do with it. The hypocrite Ivy League prof. preaches tolerance while groping female students and shitposting on Stormfront, whereas the terrorist wants to kill you dead along with everyone you love, and he's perfectly honest about it. Which of these adversaries would seem more "trustworthy" and less dangerous when viewed through the paranoid goggles of social criticism?

From a practical standpoint you can respect an enemy without and they can respect you too merely from the viewpoint that if you leave each other alone, warring is worth more effort than armed peace - an enemy within has been the nightmare of all groups, states, analysts and armies since the first time group conflict was a thing and throwing open the gates was just as literal as it was a metaphor, as that is an enemy from which there is little defence
One only has to see the great military powers of the past to the present from the Ottomans to China all fearing treachery - even in Dante's Hell there is no greater sin

Reading bits of the article now, won't be able to read it completely right now, but its something I'll get back to when I get home.
EDIT: Food for thought.
Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.

Personally I agree that we should try to avoid killing violent religious extremists. We don't want to make martyrs. Every effort should be made to take them alive and let them live out their time on earth in the dismalest dungeon allowable under the Geneva Convention

To be fair it's not coming from the second largest political party really - labour is divided and they're trying to get rid of Corbyn with a coup soon to be executed or failed some time in the future. Add to that, he's contrarian to the max and in favour of appeasing literally anyone who fights Britain from Malvinas to Syria; it's not really anything serious cos he'll never get any power. As for the topic of killing religious extremists, I'm reminded of the Italian firebrand priest who upset the Republics of Italy with an uprising. He preached of the decadence of the Republics, the corruption of the Papacy, warnings of foreign invasion (of course all three happened) and preached an austere, strict Catholicism.  He preached that the bible was the sole source of authority on Earth, that poverty was a virtue and that all artworks and books that were not holy should be burned for being sinful distractions. When his prophesy of foreign invasion came true a French army was marching to Naples - this would take them through Florence. Florence itself was undergoing political turmoil and its ruler Piero (recently having taken office) surrendered spinelessly to the French, an affront that caused the Florentines to rebel against Piero themselves. This priest would take control of Florence and Florence would turn from one of the great centres of secular humanism to a book burning theocracy. The parallels to the Middle East are striking. The Papacy nearby recognized he was a far greater threat to Catholicism than humanist ideas and declared him a heretic and did everything in their power to ruin him. Eventually he is burned at the stake. Still a martyr to his followers, he was still nonetheless quite dead and incapable of threatening the Papacy in his ashen state. I suppose the modern day example would be killing Bin Laden or Jihadi John. If you have the luxury of capture go for it, otherwise if the option to kill them is available take it.

Not just as much.
Besides, I think we should just leave them on their own. Did Britain find democracy because it was enforced on them by an external power/military?
The country will handle it by itself. As it is, we're a destabilising influence that gives the extremists a purpose.

Well while the Magna Carta wasn't enforced by war it was enforced by the nobles in response to the aftermath of war and the economic constraints it placed on the nobles, and it gradually evolved over hundreds of years in steps - occasionally with mass protests in the modern age, or things like Cromwell running around earning the nickname 'God's Executioner.' Usually it wasn't imposed by war but a consequence of post-war developments.
So it can go both ways really. On the topic of foreign imposed regimes, they can work; just have a fucking plan and don't walk in clueless

[Descan]

I mean, Japan turned out pretty well for an imposed democracy on the loser of a war.

[Rolepgeek]

Japan had had western influence shoved down it's throat since the 1800s, though, and was introduced to the West in a position of weakness, then gaining strength by adopting western tactics and the like. They were already decently prepared.

Also, they actually had a single organized regime that could be defeated. And they were/are small (in terms of population, compared to the Middle East).

What about discussing why religions like Buddhism and the like never resulted in widespread crusades in the Abrahamic style? I mean, there was certainly infighting and war, but was it mainly because everyone just sorta went with converting? Or do I just know nothing about Asian history?

[Orange Wizard]

I'd point to the One True Religion clause that exists in Abrahamic religions but not (most?) others.

[Frumple]

The widespread slaughters and conquests the eastern religions presided over tended to more or less stay "in-house", mostly, from what I understand. Stayed in the general eastern regions (which, to be fair, was pretty bloody huge :V). There's still plenty of blood spilt in their names or presided over by their believers, heh.

That said, several of the major ones are somewhat considerably more accepting of integration than the abrahamic ones are -- both the vedic traditions (which more or less explicitly allows for new gods to pop up and new traditions to be integrated) and the buddhist ones (which is at its core largely atheist (or, perhaps more accurate, apatheist) in nature, and many of its principles can slot in fairly painlessly with other religious/theist beliefs) are fairly notable in that they fold in different sects with comparatively less trouble. Still plenty of history of them murdering each other over religious schisms, mind. Just... less theological issues. Conceptually.

That said, again, even the bloody jains (for whom non-violence is their highest principle and killing unforgivable in pretty much any circumstance) were the primary religion of expansionist et al empires and owe a fair amount of their spread to the sword.

[SirQuiamus]

I disagree with some of the terminology of that article. The "suspicious" axis would be better labeled "paranoid".

That's not much of a disagreement since those two terms are perfectly interchangeable in leftist academe.

Basically the social justice movement is almost like a communicable form of paranoid schizophrenia, complete with delusions of persecution and the sense of vast faceless conspiracies lurking just betond the edge of preception.

The difference between a critic and a schizophrenic is that the former is never above suspicion even to him/herself, so you could say that online moralists are acting like schizophrenics, in a way...

But then again, there is also such a thing as justified paranoia, you know...

Mongol O'clock

12:58 AM on the doomsday clock?

Reading bits of the article now, won't be able to read it completely right now, but its something I'll get back to when I get home.

EDIT: Food for thought.

Keep in mind this is comming from the mouth of the second largest political party in England.

The context is lacking in that interview: "Shoot-to-kill" in what circumstances exactly, is the crucial thing here. When someone's waving an AK in public? Sure, put a bullet in his head before he pulls the trigger. But how about when someone who "looks like a terrorist" is guilty of "sudden moves" or "driving while Muslim?" Fuck No---we must not turn Europe into a police-state dystopia, no matter how scared we are.

[TempAcc]

There's been many religious conflicts and atrocities in the east through the ages, but most of the conflicts stayed "in house" like Frumple commented. I mean, China had some pretty major conflicts through its history with massive death tolls that involved only chinese people, so yea, these conflicts are less visible to the west. I mean, tibet had coups and other such situations due to arguments on who's the actual Dalai Lama and etc, IIRC, and tibetan buddhism is responsible for quite a few atrocities due to the fact it basically turned the peasants into temple slaves, with dismemberment, skinning and other such methods used as punishment.

[SirQuiamus]

I suppose the modern day example would be killing Bin Laden or Jihadi John.

Comparing Islamic fundamentalists to Savonarola is a pretty good analogy, but those two losers you mentioned are puny small fries next to the Original Bad Boys of religious zealotry. It would be much more accurate to compare the friar to al-Wahhab himself, in which case the only slight difference between the two would be that the latter's political legacy has weathered over two centuries of ceaseless conflict, and is currently as influential as ever. (And that is despite the fact that al-Wahhab is just as dead as Savonarola, although perhaps not quite as ashy.) Another slight difference is that less than twenty years after the friar went from ashes to ashes, this guy called Luthor or something took some of his ideas and started this thing called the Reformation. It doesn't look like Wahhabist ideas could ever motivate a similar movement from within contemporary Islamism, for various reasons...

[Loud Whispers]

What about discussing why religions like Buddhism and the like never resulted in widespread crusades in the Abrahamic style? I mean, there was certainly infighting and war, but was it mainly because everyone just sorta went with converting? Or do I just know nothing about Asian history?

Buddhism never had crusades but I can think of a few times where it didn't spread by the sword, but had its path cleared for it by the sword. Such as when the great Emperor Ashoka slaughtered his way through India and had a crisis of conscience, famously observing the ruin he had brought his enemies and rhetorically asking is that what his victory looked like? Anyways he has a crisis of conscience and after failing to torture some Buddhists to death converts to Buddhism and forsakes violence, ceasing his campaigns and the like, spreading the teachings of Buddhism far and wide through India and all the world, even as far as Greece and China. Indian Buddhism spread into China through the Ferghana valley but after the Chinese were kicked out by invading Muslim nomads Indian and Chinese Buddhism lost their direct links and developed onto separate paths. Buddhism would be carried on eastwards just by people teaching it to others (India and China both having good education cultures) until it reaches warrior cultures like in Japan, where they found ways to rationalize violence. Or like in Burma where they likewise did too. I'm reminded of when Christianity expanded into the warrior cultures of the Germanics, hell became depicted as a cold place because they had difficulty imagining a burning place, and Jesus went from being the austere matyr to a noticeably Germanic warrior prophet. I reckon there were no great religious wars until the Muslims and Christians arrived because the Chinese had no problem causing gargantuan wars over heaven's mandate and India in religion or statehood was rarely united or organized. I suppose Buddhism had an advantage in that it didn't require you hold exclusive belief in it as the Abrahamics do with theirs, no my prophet is only prophet and so forth, the overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism or the Buddha being a deity in both Hinduism and Chinese spiritualism being a good example of this

Mongol O'clock

12:58 AM on the doomsday clock?

Russians are so lucky the Mongols got too brilly and decided to go home before finishing the job
Nuclear war is preferable to Mongol O'clock, Finngolia will rise again

Comparing Islamic fundamentalists to Savonarola is a pretty good analogy, but those two losers you mentioned are puny small fries next to the Original Bad Boys of religious zealotry.

Reading Islamist materials on how they view Jews and Christians is very interesting, especially how they view Christianity as fundamentally broken twice; today it is weak and corrupt (there's a list somewhere of 1,700 years of European scholars interpreting the revalations passages in regards to the beast being the Papacy, not surprising) whereas before it was morality by force, with the strongest state deciding what form of Christianity was the correct one - culminating in WWI where all the protestants, catholics and orthodox nations warred with each other so brutally with each convinced they were the true Christians fighting heathens that the end result was all of the Christian faiths were broken and the populations gave up their faith in favour of secularism, hedonism or a bit of both
Especially hard hit were the countries whose first waves were always volunteers - threw away their most zealous into the meat grinder. Noticeably Russia is the exception to this, as its Orthodoxy has experienced some modern day revival, so maybe Islamist scholars are wrong on this or Russia is a special case. I find it odd that they acknowledge the Christian faiths broke each other but then also think warring with the Shia won't end up with the same fate for them ???

It would be much more accurate to compare the friar to al-Wahhab himself, in which case the only slight difference between the two would be that the latter's political legacy has weathered over two centuries of ceaseless conflict, and is currently as influential as ever. (And that is despite the fact that al-Wahhab is just as dead as Savonarola, although perhaps not quite as ashy.)

I think assassinating Savonarola's character might have helped, when you discredit someone you kill their legacy as well as their life. Also very ashy.

Another slight difference is that less than twenty years after the friar went from ashes to ashes, this guy called Luthor or something took some of his ideas and started this thing called the Reformation. It doesn't look like Wahhabist ideas could ever motivate a similar movement from within contemporary Islamism, for various reasons...

To be fair Martin's cheeky bants were going to happen anyways
Unless they had the foresight to set him on fire too hahaha

[Graknorke]

I find it odd that they acknowledge the Christian faiths broke each other but then also think warring with the Shia won't end up with the same fate for them ???

Well no that's different because that was infidels fighting each other but this is The One True Faith™ fighting infidels so it's totally different.