|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 15:49:07 GMT -5
I highly recommend this discussion about the jihadi problem and possible solutions:
I wish Zuhdi Jasser well, but this is what an Imam did to him:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 16:14:00 GMT -5
We have to factor into the ISIS situation that young people are sometimes looking for a "cause". There are reports here of moderate Imams here trying to de-radicalise some of their younger members, without success at times. Rebels are not unique to Islam. I would applaud moderate Imams but they are really hard to find. They can't do much to deradicalise the young people without attempting to deradicalise their fellow Imams. Here's a moderate Imam: Yeah....I know. This is from an evangelical website. How did you determine that not many Imams are moderate?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 16:18:42 GMT -5
I absolutely defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to print their cartoons. However, I also defend the right of individual publications to have content standard that exclude offensive materials ... excluding both cartoons and religious (pro-Muslim) advertising. France's stand seems contradictory to me, and they've been criticized for their stance. We have to factor into the ISIS situation that young people are sometimes looking for a "cause". There are reports here of moderate Imams here trying to de-radicalise some of their younger members, without success at times. Rebels are not unique to Islam. We can continue to import Imams from basket case countries to teach our young people, and then kill the young folks after they become jihadis. However I do wonder if it would be better to simply stop the hate preachers coming into free countries to spew their venom. I kinda think exporting Imams will have zero effect on the problem. Known radical imams should be subject to travel restrictions for quite a few reasons. We agree on that one.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 16:52:59 GMT -5
I would applaud moderate Imams but they are really hard to find. They can't do much to deradicalise the young people without attempting to deradicalise their fellow Imams. Here's a moderate Imam: Yeah....I know. This is from an evangelical website. How did you determine that not many Imams are moderate? Moderate Imams tend to be killed or intimidated into silence. Here's an Islamic scholar who is asking where the moderate Imams are... Did the reform of Christianity that enabled the separation of church and state in the West came from government, or from Christian clergy?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 18:47:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 18:51:22 GMT -5
Government. Why?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 19:42:02 GMT -5
I expect reform in the Islamic world will also not come from within the religion. Government will need to take the initiative in separating politics from the Islamic religion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 19:47:04 GMT -5
Yes, some Islamic leaders speak out against ISIL. The problem is much bigger than ISIL though. What's needed is that Islamic leaders come to an appreciation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and stop advocating the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against Jews, Christians and secularism.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 19:54:02 GMT -5
I expect reform in the Islamic world will also not come from within the religion. Government will need to take the initiative in separating politics from the Islamic religion. That's an ongoing conflict in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. It hardly helps that the USA supports Muslim regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 20:00:23 GMT -5
Yes, some Islamic leaders speak out against ISIL. The problem is much bigger than ISIL though. What's needed is that Islamic leaders come to an appreciation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and stop advocating the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against Jews, Christians and secularism. You really shouldn't conflate violent Muslim extremism with conservative Muslim theology. The two require completely different measures, IMO. It's quite simple. 1) Deal harshly with violence and oppression whereever it is found. 2) Respect national and ethnic autonomy and allow Muslim dominated countries to resolve their internal issues with theology and governance.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 20:03:13 GMT -5
I expect reform in the Islamic world will also not come from within the religion. Government will need to take the initiative in separating politics from the Islamic religion. That's an ongoing conflict in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. It hardly helps that the USA supports Muslim regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia. I agree that Saudi Arabia's human rights record is appalling. How can we engage with the Islamic world without working with the regimes that are in place?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 20:05:55 GMT -5
Yes, some Islamic leaders speak out against ISIL. The problem is much bigger than ISIL though. What's needed is that Islamic leaders come to an appreciation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and stop advocating the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against Jews, Christians and secularism. You really shouldn't conflate violent Muslim extremism with conservative Muslim theology. The two require completely different measures, IMO. It's quite simple. 1) Deal harshly with violence and oppression whereever it is found. 2) Respect national and ethnic autonomy and allow Muslim dominated countries to resolve their internal issues with theology and governance. Where I'm not following you is that you advocate allowing Imams to incite violence and oppression, yet you want us to fight it "wherever it is found".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 1, 2015 22:00:14 GMT -5
We can continue to import Imams from basket case countries to teach our young people, and then kill the young folks after they become jihadis. However I do wonder if it would be better to simply stop the hate preachers coming into free countries to spew their venom. So free speech for some but not for all?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 22:21:25 GMT -5
We can continue to import Imams from basket case countries to teach our young people, and then kill the young folks after they become jihadis. However I do wonder if it would be better to simply stop the hate preachers coming into free countries to spew their venom. So free speech for some but not for all? It's tricky, I must admit. If a religious leader in your neighbourhood advocated the beheading of atheists you might be caused to wonder if free speech was a good thing (sorry, I'm meant to avoid "emotional" discussion). One attitude towards free speech is to bring it on, and trust that the best ideas will win out in the end. I wonder if Germany would have fared better if the government had restricted Nazi rhetoric in the 1920s and 1930s?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 1, 2015 23:35:10 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if the jihadists aren't trying to just give Islam a bad name, create a further split between Islam and Christianity than there already is, that started with the Crusades. Then they can draw the moderates into the whole thing because they are having to defend themselves against those who think all Muslims are alike and target Muslims in general and not just the extremists. Because of the numbers in both groups the whole thing could escalate to really nasty. It wouldn't be the first time that a nut case group has tried to create a war that will bring on the Armageddon. The radical Jewish group, the Kookists, tried to bomb the Dome of the Rock with just that goal in mind. Get everyone fighting. This article is an interesting look at terrorism, extremists etc. members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.html
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 1, 2015 23:41:41 GMT -5
So free speech for some but not for all? It's tricky, I must admit. If a religious leader in your neighbourhood advocated the beheading of atheists you might be caused to wonder if free speech was a good thing (sorry, I'm meant to avoid "emotional" discussion). If you are going to support freedom of speech then your next comment is indeed true: One attitude towards free speech is to bring it on, and trust that the best ideas will win out in the end.It would have fared better had everyone enjoyed the freedom of speech. The government's restriction of free speech prevented the expression of a balanced depiction of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 0:01:41 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if the jihadists aren't trying to just give Islam a bad name, create a further split between Islam and Christianity than there already is, that started with the Crusades. Then they can draw the moderates into the whole thing because they are having to defend themselves against those who think all Muslims are alike and target Muslims in general and not just the extremists. Because of the numbers in both groups the whole thing could escalate to really nasty. It wouldn't be the first time that a nut case group has tried to create a war that will bring on the Armageddon. The radical Jewish group, the Kookists, tried to bomb the Dome of the Rock with just that goal in mind. Get everyone fighting. This article is an interesting look at terrorism, extremists etc. members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.html Your comment about Armageddon reminded me of statements by Ronald Reagan.
He alarmed many of us when he would by speak freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible and connect it with a nuclear war.
People in positions of such power can make self fulling prophecies.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 2, 2015 0:08:39 GMT -5
And yet we all wait with eager anticipation as to what the end shall be. How ironic given the fact, should we listen the materialist-atheist partisans, that Creation, random-event, terrestrial perturbations had no end in mind.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 0:18:17 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if the jihadists aren't trying to just give Islam a bad name, create a further split between Islam and Christianity than there already is, that started with the Crusades. Then they can draw the moderates into the whole thing because they are having to defend themselves against those who think all Muslims are alike and target Muslims in general and not just the extremists. Because of the numbers in both groups the whole thing could escalate to really nasty. It wouldn't be the first time that a nut case group has tried to create a war that will bring on the Armageddon. The radical Jewish group, the Kookists, tried to bomb the Dome of the Rock with just that goal in mind. Get everyone fighting. This article is an interesting look at terrorism, extremists etc. members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.htmlYou might be right but it's actually secularism they've declared war on even though they refer to it as "Jews and Christians". A moderate Muslim recommended that we focus on Sharia to separate between personal faith and political Islam. When Sharia is implemented as the radicals want, it becomes "man-made" law, while Sharia should be a personal conviction of how to live a personal faith.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 0:20:34 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if the jihadists aren't trying to just give Islam a bad name, create a further split between Islam and Christianity than there already is, that started with the Crusades. Then they can draw the moderates into the whole thing because they are having to defend themselves against those who think all Muslims are alike and target Muslims in general and not just the extremists. Because of the numbers in both groups the whole thing could escalate to really nasty. It wouldn't be the first time that a nut case group has tried to create a war that will bring on the Armageddon. The radical Jewish group, the Kookists, tried to bomb the Dome of the Rock with just that goal in mind. Get everyone fighting. This article is an interesting look at terrorism, extremists etc. members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.html Your comment about Armageddon reminded me of statements by Ronald Reagan.
He alarmed many of us when he would by speak freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible and connect it with a nuclear war.
People in positions of such power can make self fulling prophecies.
Ronald Reagan hastened the end of the Cold War with strong leadership and plain speaking. Weak leadership creates power vacuums, and bullies have their merry way.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 0:24:55 GMT -5
It's tricky, I must admit. If a religious leader in your neighbourhood advocated the beheading of atheists you might be caused to wonder if free speech was a good thing (sorry, I'm meant to avoid "emotional" discussion). If you are going to support freedom of speech then your next comment is indeed true: One attitude towards free speech is to bring it on, and trust that the best ideas will win out in the end.It would have fared better had everyone enjoyed the freedom of speech. The government's restriction of free speech prevented the expression of a balanced depiction of the situation. Which government are you talking about? The freedom to promote the Nazi narrative led to WW2 which cost 4,200,000 German lives and a total of 48,000,000 lives lost world wide. Might it have been better to restrict the Nazi narrative before it got out of control?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 1:39:55 GMT -5
If you are going to support freedom of speech then your next comment is indeed true: One attitude towards free speech is to bring it on, and trust that the best ideas will win out in the end.It would have fared better had everyone enjoyed the freedom of speech. The government's restriction of free speech prevented the expression of a balanced depiction of the situation. Which government are you talking about? The freedom to promote the Nazi narrative led to WW2 which cost 4,200,000 German lives and a total of 48,000,000 lives lost world wide. Might it have been better to restrict the Nazi narrative before it got out of control? You seem to know about the 'Nazi narrative" in Germany.
I wonder at what point you would have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?"
I have a copy of some notes from the Theodore convention in 1935.
A worker was speaking of some of the conditions in Europe at the time & crediting Hitler for "bringing order" to the country. He did go on to say that, "Hitler's government has done other things that we could not command. "(probably a typing error for "commend")
The point is, how was anyone to know what was going to happen 1935?
At what point in time would you have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?" Hindsight is always great.
(BTW, who do you think should have done the restricting of the Nazi narrative?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 1:42:15 GMT -5
Your comment about Armageddon reminded me of statements by Ronald Reagan.
He alarmed many of us when he would by speak freely about the "End Times" foreshadowed in the Bible and connect it with a nuclear war.
People in positions of such power can make self fulling prophecies.
Ronald Reagan hastened the end of the Cold War with strong leadership and plain speaking. Weak leadership creates power vacuums, and bullies have their merry way. That is your opinion, but that was not the subject I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 1:45:44 GMT -5
And yet we all wait with eager anticipation as to what the end shall be. How ironic given the fact, should we listen the materialist-atheist partisans, that Creation, random-event, terrestrial perturbations had no end in mind. Not all of us wait with "eager anticipation" for the end as some Christians seem to want to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 2, 2015 1:52:05 GMT -5
Sure you do. You atheists are invested in the end-times as anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 2:57:17 GMT -5
Sure you do. You atheists are invested in the end-times as anyone else. why?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 2, 2015 4:02:56 GMT -5
Which government are you talking about? The freedom to promote the Nazi narrative led to WW2 which cost 4,200,000 German lives and a total of 48,000,000 lives lost world wide. Might it have been better to restrict the Nazi narrative before it got out of control? You seem to know about the 'Nazi narrative" in Germany.
I wonder at what point you would have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?"
I have a copy of some notes from the Theodore convention in 1935.
A worker was speaking of some of the conditions in Europe at the time & crediting Hitler for "bringing order" to the country. He did go on to say that, "Hitler's government has done other things that we could not command. "(probably a typing error for "commend")
The point is, how was anyone to know what was going to happen 1935?
At what point in time would you have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?" Hindsight is always great.
(BTW, who do you think should have done the restricting of the Nazi narrative? Posters like this should have been forbidden: “Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” this poster says. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. Similarly dangerous racist propaganda is being widely promoted by political Islam today.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2015 4:13:10 GMT -5
You seem to know about the 'Nazi narrative" in Germany.
I wonder at what point you would have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?"
I have a copy of some notes from the Theodore convention in 1935.
A worker was speaking of some of the conditions in Europe at the time & crediting Hitler for "bringing order" to the country. He did go on to say that, "Hitler's government has done other things that we could not command. "(probably a typing error for "commend")
The point is, how was anyone to know what was going to happen 1935?
At what point in time would you have "restricted" the 'Nazi narrative?" Hindsight is always great.
(BTW, who do you think should have done the restricting of the Nazi narrative? This poster should have been forbidden:“Get rid misery, get rid of the Jews,” this poster says. It was used for the November 1932 Reichstag election. The same racist propaganda is being widely promoted by political Islam today. And just who do you think should have forbidden it?
The USA? Britain? France? YOU? The worker who speak at the Theodore convention in Canada?
And just how would they go about forbidding it?
|
|