Print

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

[Reelya]

Women being denied drivers licenses isn't a good example of a religious doctrine, since there's no such doctrine in the Koran.

The chicken and the egg question of "morality" is whether religion determines "morals", or whether society determines it's "morals" then cherry picks religious sources in support of them.

My money is on the latter. All societies ignore "inconvenient" parts of their own religion and tack extra stuff on that's not even in the source.

[Sheb]

My views are more qualitative than quantitative. Sure, saudi arabia isn't going around setting up a caliphate, but islamic doctrine still holds huge sway over the day to day lives of its citizens, or else burkas wouldn't exist and women would be able to legally drive. Iran is indeed a good example, though.

Well, how do you define political islam? Because that was the term that you introduced without defining it properly.

[TempAcc]

I thought it'd be obvious enough, since its not something I came up with. By political islam I meant islamic doctrine actualy influencing politics, laws and society as a whole, to the point it defines the law itself. The law is born out of religious doctrine, rather than stablished legal principles (like those from the declaration of human rights and etc).

Even if sharia is not actualy codified in the letters of SA's laws, it is very much enforced in practice, since stuff like apostasy are still treated as serious crimes. It is actualy codified in Iran, Iraq, Indonesia and other places, though.

As for political christianity, you could argue that the general illegality of same sex marriage is something born out of christian doctrine, though there are valid reasons to argue its not such a simple issue and that it may simply be a common law thing.

[Sheb]

I thought it'd be obvious enough, since its not something I came up with. By political islam I meant islamic doctrine actualy influencing politics, laws and society as a whole, to the point it defines the law itself. The law is born out of religious doctrine, rather than stablished legal principles (like those from the declaration of human rights and etc).

Even if sharia is not actualy codified in the letters of SA's laws, it is very much enforced in practice, since stuff like apostasy are still treated as serious crimes. It is actualy codified in Iran, Iraq, Indonesia and other places, though.

It's 2 am here so I'll try to answer tomorrow, but before I forget I just wanted to point out that it's not obvioud to me. When I hear "political Islam" I think of explicit political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

As for political christianity, you could argue that the general illegality of same sex marriage is something born out of christian doctrine, though there are valid reasons to argue its not such a simple issue and that it may simply be a common law thing.

Do you do the same difference between things that are due to Islamic doctrine and things that are due to other things, like Arab cultural practices?

[Max™]

Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage+lgbt right resistance in general, along with some portion of the resistance to universal healthcare, living wages, fixing the homeless problem, and science/education funding is all based on various whackjobs trying to force people to live according to their interpretation of christianity.

Without political christianity there would be nobody taking anti-abortion/gay marriage/evolution folks seriously here in the US, and without that goddamn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic bullshit we wouldn't have people fighting tooth and nail against socialist programs like welfare, healthcare, and living wages.

Political [Insert Religion Here] is terrible and should be fought against in general, I don't give a fuck what you think a skyparent said, once you start trying to force others to abide by it, you need to fuck the hell off.

i'm sure sharia isn't really as bad as alt-righters say, but it's pretty damn shitty, and people still defend it.

Aye, and nice sized chunks of them conservative or alt-righters Or defend most and/or all its component parts, anyway.

... anyway, I like the khawarij idea, or something along those lines. Looks like it sounds kinda' cabbage or carriage or somethin', and gets double bonus points for stealing another language's words as is english and proper. Jihad or jihadi does, too, but they've got too many decent interpretations and too many people then use jihadist and if we're going to do this right it's all steal and no assimilation, all the ists must go.

So we're going with 'khawarijists' then?

[Baffler]

Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage+lgbt right resistance in general, along with some portion of the resistance to universal healthcare, living wages, fixing the homeless problem, and science/education funding is all based on various whackjobs trying to force people to live according to their interpretation of christianity.

Without political christianity there would be nobody taking anti-abortion/gay marriage/evolution folks seriously here in the US, and without that goddamn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic bullshit we wouldn't have people fighting tooth and nail against socialist programs like welfare, healthcare, and living wages.

Political [Insert Religion Here] is terrible and should be fought against in general, I don't give a fuck what you think a skyparent said, once you start trying to force others to abide by it, you need to fuck the hell off.

i'm sure sharia isn't really as bad as alt-righters say, but it's pretty damn shitty, and people still defend it.

Aye, and nice sized chunks of them conservative or alt-righters Or defend most and/or all its component parts, anyway.

... anyway, I like the khawarij idea, or something along those lines. Looks like it sounds kinda' cabbage or carriage or somethin', and gets double bonus points for stealing another language's words as is english and proper. Jihad or jihadi does, too, but they've got too many decent interpretations and too many people then use jihadist and if we're going to do this right it's all steal and no assimilation, all the ists must go.

So we're going with 'khawarijists' then?

I will point you in the direction of the ASP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party
https://solidarity-party.org/

They're irrelevant (in the USA anyway,) certainly, and as long as they remain a more or less explicitly Catholic party they probably will remain that way, but they do exist. Perhaps you should simmer down with the Euphoria.

[alway]

Let's be entirely clear here: basically all religious groups have their problems. Do not overgeneralize or even generalize those problems into all-encompassing genocide-justifying casus belli if you want to be anything other than just another racist. If you have actual grievances, air them. Not some bollocks about how maybe one day in the future some theoretical person might in theory do something you don't want based on prejudiced ideas about how 'that sort of person' might act. Not something done in some far away land by someone judged to be exactly the same because of a trait shared by 20% of the world's population; unless you too wish to be judged based on the most violent offenders and committers of genocide in all of Europe and the Americas.

Cause as far as I can tell, these themes get thrown around quite a lot without actual justification: "They" (a term as nebulously broad, if not more so, as saying 'all white people' or 'all christians') are coming to destroy your laws, implement "their culture" (again, as nebulous as lumping together all white people or all christians), with the often implied 'and exterminate you.' (again, with a laughably broad description)

First, toss out this ridiculous idea of 'they' which describes a fifth of the human population as if if was one giant hive mind of slaved zerglings. That alone is dehumanizing and an insult to humanity itself, to put it mildly. Reality is way more complex than that.

Second, where are "these people" you're on about? Where are "their" attempts to legislate in your country these supposed values you find horrifying? Not some over-broad generalization anybody could make up about anybody, actual examples of a group that has come out in full, political support of something.

Third, tying into the first, blame precisely those people who support such things, not those who don't. Mormons fled places where they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. By the sort of racist overgeneralization of "person X believes in the laws/norms of the country Y they grew up in" logic, they should believe the persecution of Mormons is morally justified and the right thing to do; which is clearly nonsense.

Anything that falls short of these most basic demands is nothing more than worthless racism, and offers no "solutions" other than a wide ranging genocide of innocents, regardless of whether you realize that fact yet.

So if you want to go on about "political Islam," by all means do so; but do so in reference to specific people in specific places pushing specific things. Always keep in mind, there is no grand master playing a strategy game moving pawns around a board; no overarching plan being executed beyond those executed by actual human beings. People advocating for their ideas and beliefs, which are themselves an incredibly varied and diverse mix; as anyone who's ever been to a family get together and heard ridiculously strange ideologies from even their immediate relatives could tell you. Who is leading this supposed movement in the United States? Where is their base of support here? What laws have they put on the books or put political weight behind? Which politicians have they supported who declared their support for such laws? Those are the questions which must be investigated if you are to have a serious discussion on the matter rather than merely repeating intellectually lazy talking points based in racism.

(fakedit for the posts which went up while typing mine)And as Max shows, these criteria really aren't an unreasonable ask; specific legislation agendas pushed by specific groups, resulting in them being a political platform for a party, which supports and garners votes with them. Saying it's all Christians would be ridiculous for any attempt at accuracy, as Baffler points out.

[TempAcc]

But here's a thing before I head off to bed: what if such terrible things really aren't the intentions of a small group of people, but the direct result of ideals postulated at the very core of a doctrine? Can one disassociate a muslim from what the Quran imposes? Can a person that does not adhere to the ideals expressed in the Quran really be called a muslim at all? Mind you, pro sharia law people aren't exactly a tiny minority among muslims.

Even in brittain, about 1/4 of muslims think sharia law should be the law of the land. Is one quarter of such a large group really just some tiny minority? Keep in mind that brittain's muslim population is usualy put among the more "moderate" ones.

Its very easy to throw any critic of that kind of behavior to the wind and handwave it as racism, but I think it is a valid worry when you have that many people living within your borders wanting to impose stuff like mandatory stoning.
Sure, just thinking these people are evil incarnate doesnt solve anything, but handwaving any efforts into bringing such issues into the light as racism also doesn't solve anything, and its a specially bad practice since it enlarges the definition of racism to ridiculous extents, making discourse on the issue nigh impossible while ALSO not solving anything in regards to actual racism.

[Neonivek]

Even in brittain, about 1/4 of muslims think sharia law should be the law of the land.

No, that is a misrepresentation: "In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations"

By which they mean that in "Muslim Town" perhaps they could implement Sharia law.

[Frumple]

I've already issued my complaints about Islam, probably in some other thread years ago. Issue is that extreme decentralization leads to every small disagreement leading to an entirely different sect, and movement between the sects is incredibly fluid. Problem is that this decentralization is fundamental to the religion as a whole; hell, it's how it spread so far in the first place. Hence, it's incredibly easy to end up with a sect such as Salafism pop up and the other sects don't really have much influence on trying to rid of it. If the Pope denounces the Methodist church, does anyone care?

Well, sure? Plenty of people, even non-catholics. They might not follow the pope's suggestions or think the denouncement is 100% on point, but care? Consider his position one with a degree of import? Sure.

Now... the head of one of the thousand denominations and a denomination in the US? Yeah, that's a different question. Folks may recognize the popehat and give it a degree of respect, or at the least attention (if for no other reason than it's pretty shiny), but the priest suspenders of backwoods splinter sect #659 might not even be recognized as a priest, never mind someone to listen to. Which is probably your point, the pope is just a terrible example to use for it since even many christians that don't agree to the pope's authority or espoused doctrine have a degree of respect for their faith and whatnot.

[sluissa]

Even in brittain, about 1/4 of muslims think sharia law should be the law of the land.

No, that is a misrepresentation: "In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations"

By which they mean that in "Muslim Town" perhaps they could implement Sharia law.

While possibly technically correct doesn't erase the original point.

Nations don't work if every little community decides they don't want to follow laws they disagree with or wish to implement laws which might revoke constitutionally promised rights.

[Max™]

Small note to alway: you can't be racist against a belief or belief system, though yes, going the step of trying to get rid of people who hold the beliefs is too far, attacking beliefs which are being claimed as justification for harming others is a good thing if you can get rid of said beliefs.

Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage+lgbt right resistance in general, along with some portion of the resistance to universal healthcare, living wages, fixing the homeless problem, and science/education funding is all based on various whackjobs trying to force people to live according to their interpretation of christianity.

Without political christianity there would be nobody taking anti-abortion/gay marriage/evolution folks seriously here in the US, and without that goddamn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic bullshit we wouldn't have people fighting tooth and nail against socialist programs like welfare, healthcare, and living wages.

Political [Insert Religion Here] is terrible and should be fought against in general, I don't give a fuck what you think a skyparent said, once you start trying to force others to abide by it, you need to fuck the hell off.

i'm sure sharia isn't really as bad as alt-righters say, but it's pretty damn shitty, and people still defend it.

Aye, and nice sized chunks of them conservative or alt-righters Or defend most and/or all its component parts, anyway.

... anyway, I like the khawarij idea, or something along those lines. Looks like it sounds kinda' cabbage or carriage or somethin', and gets double bonus points for stealing another language's words as is english and proper. Jihad or jihadi does, too, but they've got too many decent interpretations and too many people then use jihadist and if we're going to do this right it's all steal and no assimilation, all the ists must go.

So we're going with 'khawarijists' then?

I will point you in the direction of the ASP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party
https://solidarity-party.org/

They're irrelevant (in the USA anyway,) certainly, and as long as they remain a more or less explicitly Catholic party they probably will remain that way, but they do exist. Perhaps you should simmer down with the Euphoria.

Euphoria? The fake drug from 90210? I mean, that's actually just showing what happens when you get rid of the protestant work ethic bullshit: they lose support from powerful capitalist groups and aren't able to get people to care about their whackjob bullshit by itself, despite the presence of positions which would in fact help tons of people, though they've only been around since 2011, but hey, I guess political christanity without the pro-capitalist shit is an improvement?

[Frumple]

Good point. The principle matters more than the example here, though. The key is that there is no "pope" of Islam. It's all just religious sects with their own religious heads.

*waggles hand* I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is? Like, I know the sunni/shiite split and other such stuff is/can get pretty hardcore, but I could swear I've heard of more than one priest-critter or scholar/theologian or whatever that had pretty broad respect even across sectarian lines.

... though, mind, it's also rather possible it's just my head feeling like screwing me hard enough at the moment I'm remembering shit that didn't happen. Would not surprise in the least, right now.

[misko27]

Even in brittain,

I just kindly asked earlier if we could keep Europe out of Ameripol. Now I'll be a little more annoyed: America has not been Britain since 1776, so it isn't relevant, and on an unrelated note, Britain has literally more politics threads than any other country right now, so keep that there if you don't mind. It shouldn't be so hard to get polls of American Muslims right? Do that, not this.

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, they can have all the sharia they want, they can have a big sharia cakewalk right through the middle of Trafalgar Square; Just discuss it in one of the many Britpols, ok? Stop worrying so much about "The West". We have an ocean, they don't; their problems are not our problems.

[sluissa]

Even in brittain,

I just kindly asked earlier if we could keep Europe out of Ameripol. Now I'll be a little more annoyed: America has not been Britain since 1776, so it isn't relevant, and on an unrelated note, Britain has literally more politics threads than any other country right now, so keep that there if you don't mind. It shouldn't be so hard to get polls of American Muslims right? Do that, not this.

To paraphrase Dennis Leary, they can have all the sharia they want, they can have a big sharia cakewalk right through the middle of Trafalgar Square; Just discuss it in one of the many Britpols, ok? Stop worrying so much about "The West". We have an ocean, they don't; their problems are not our problems.

I didn't realize Dennis Leary hung out here. Neat.

Also it's fair to call examples when they're relevant.

It's not as if we weren't talking about a dozen other countries dealing with a global issue in the last few pages. Singling out Britain as unwelcome here is just plain rude.