The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?
- Thread starter Guybrush
- Start date
crackerjack
Well-known member
That's certainly true of many, maybe even most. But the record of those few theocratic regimes (Iran, Sudan, pre-9/11 Afghanistan) is just as bad (though Iran, certainly, is better than the US-backed but also very theocratic Saudi Arabia) .
Latin American countries had appalling records during the cold war - for the most part, they have improved massively since. There has been no concomitant improvement in the ME.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Where do the terrorists come from? Iran? No, they come from the nations with secular dictatorships. Those nations liquidated secular civil society with the blessing of the U.S. leaving religious leadership, which has become increasingly radical over the decades, as the only opposition to the state. They continue to crack down on secular radical dissent: Egypt is a prime example.
If you are truly interested in reducing the threat of terrorism, it seems ludicrous to support uninformed reactionary criticisms of the religion and increased repression of Muslim immigrants. Don't you see how this worsens the problem?
I am not against criticism of Islam or any other religion. I would prefer greater secularism in the Middle East. But when the "criticism" comes from lazy, uninformed deliberately offensive Western sources, it's totally ineffective: it fans the flames, and often that is the real desired effect. Theo van Gogh said he thought there should be a Muslim "Life of Brian." Fair enough, and I am inclined to agree with him, but this would have to come from Muslims to be effective -- he is not the person to do it. There are many many people calling for greater secularism, women's rights, etc. from within the Muslim world (and not neocon shills like Hirsi Ali), but for whatever reason they are not given much air time, they are not asked to draw cartoons.
Have you seen those Danish cartoons? The depiction of Muslims is so close to the depiction of Jews in anti-semitic cartoons (hirstute, hooked noses, salacious grins), it's shocking that you don't see the obvious racism (anti-semitism is racism is it not?). After reading the extensive Wikipedia article I linked above, I am more sympathetic to the Dutch "experiment"... well I am late for work, to be continued!
crackerjack
Well-known member
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or are you stupid? I didn't defend the cartoons, any more than I blamed the Ayatollahs for 9/11 (though if you're goinng to bring Iran into this you should make mention of their role in financing terror groups in Palestine and Lebanon). I joined this discussion to tmake issue with you and others characterising Tea as racist for stating the bleeding obvious - that many Muslims are too quick to anger when they feel their religion is slighted.
I wholly agree with what you say above about van Gogh and Hirsi Ali - no doubt the Islamic world can and will find much better candidates for its Life Of Brian. I'd like to think that when they do, you will support them; reading your commens here and elsewhere i suspect you'll just dismiss them as tools of a Western plot.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
This is exactly it. I'm being made to feel in this thread that, as a white atheist, the only people I'm 'allowed' to criticize are other white atheists, or of course white Christians (Westerners, in other words), and that for me to criticize anyone else is racist by definition - regardless of how of bonkers or barbaric the beliefs or deeds of those people may be. It's the old pseudo-liberal mantra: It's their culture, we have no right to criticize it; if you don't like something, it's because you're ignorant; we do stuff that's just as bad...
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
crackerjack
Well-known member
Line 'em up, blow 'em out like candles.
Of course you are allowed to criticise Mr Tea, but you have to criticise effectively to avoid being seen as merely prejudiced- ie: precisely what Gavin has been arguing- that taken out of political context (both within the politics of Islamic states and the West's interaction with them) a critique of just Islam is absurd. It is nothing to do with culture per se as much as to do with realpolitik. And it might be handy to refer back to times within Western "civilisation" when various foul creeds of Christianity wreaked various degrees of violence. By imagining that the political can be disentangled from the religious you attempt to disavow both a useful analysis and one which might do anything other than criticise the weak...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well sure, there's a very large political aspect to all of this, but upthread you said something to the effect that this wasn't really about religion at all, which I think is an overstatement.
And to what extent can religion be disentangled from politics, anyway? (Edit: OK, you said as much yourself in your last post, but you seemed to be trying to do the same thing earlier.) In a secularised country we can take this for granted, but many religious people, in particular fundamentalists of *any* creed (since this applies to Hindu nationalists, right-wing/orthodox Jews and American bible-bashers just as much as to Islamists) their politics is their religion; there's no meaningful distinction.
As regards the 'weak', there are plenty of places in the world where those wielding religious power, or at any rate legal/military power with a religious mandate, are locally very strong, and it's the people they oppress who are the weak.
And to what extent can religion be disentangled from politics, anyway? (Edit: OK, you said as much yourself in your last post, but you seemed to be trying to do the same thing earlier.) In a secularised country we can take this for granted, but many religious people, in particular fundamentalists of *any* creed (since this applies to Hindu nationalists, right-wing/orthodox Jews and American bible-bashers just as much as to Islamists) their politics is their religion; there's no meaningful distinction.
As regards the 'weak', there are plenty of places in the world where those wielding religious power, or at any rate legal/military power with a religious mandate, are locally very strong, and it's the people they oppress who are the weak.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well yes, but the original post that caused Zhao to blow his top was merely a link to the teddy bear story. It's not hard to sympathise with Mr Tea because it seems clear that Zhao was waiting to criticise him without even seeing what his stance was and forced him to defend himself from the off. Hardly conducive to any kind of debate.
Right- but how many of these people (be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian) have a functional understanding of their religion as we would conceive of it...?
Most of them take it as an identity, constituted in terms which have little to do with religion, (or at least on obviously selective and politicised readings) and as such how useful is it to criticise on the basis of religion? Rather it would be better to talk of a specific group under specific social and political conditions. The religious is subservient to the political goals of those operating hegemonic power within their locality- and you admit this! The mere fact that religion is utilised as an organon of political will does not mean that somehow it is down to the contents of the religion itself (although it could be argued that secularism in general would vitiate against such utilisations, but that is another matter entirely.) -- indeed the contents as such are so open to interpretation (as demonstrable in the range of Islams and Christianities in effect across the world). The interesting element then is not the religious at all, but the political. Which is all the less convenient for those of an even vaguely neoconservative bent as any analysis of the political demonstrates repeated Western partial culpability (in terms of acts and omissions). Not that this "lets the bad guys (sic) off the hook" but rather that it explicates the messiness and complexity of situations which many are all too happy to paint in big primary colours, like a toddlers drawing of geopolitics- grotesque simplification and demonisation of the irrational other. Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions. This does not necessarily equal equivelance, but rather a commonality, instead of what amounts to prejudice no matter what one terms it... (ie- whether it is racism or religious prejudice or xenophobia is a matter of legalistic taxonomy, not a mater of morality)
Most of them take it as an identity, constituted in terms which have little to do with religion, (or at least on obviously selective and politicised readings) and as such how useful is it to criticise on the basis of religion? Rather it would be better to talk of a specific group under specific social and political conditions. The religious is subservient to the political goals of those operating hegemonic power within their locality- and you admit this! The mere fact that religion is utilised as an organon of political will does not mean that somehow it is down to the contents of the religion itself (although it could be argued that secularism in general would vitiate against such utilisations, but that is another matter entirely.) -- indeed the contents as such are so open to interpretation (as demonstrable in the range of Islams and Christianities in effect across the world). The interesting element then is not the religious at all, but the political. Which is all the less convenient for those of an even vaguely neoconservative bent as any analysis of the political demonstrates repeated Western partial culpability (in terms of acts and omissions). Not that this "lets the bad guys (sic) off the hook" but rather that it explicates the messiness and complexity of situations which many are all too happy to paint in big primary colours, like a toddlers drawing of geopolitics- grotesque simplification and demonisation of the irrational other. Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions. This does not necessarily equal equivelance, but rather a commonality, instead of what amounts to prejudice no matter what one terms it... (ie- whether it is racism or religious prejudice or xenophobia is a matter of legalistic taxonomy, not a mater of morality)
Last edited:
Well this is just splendid. The Brit is going to tell us what Islamic followers worldwide actually believe. Hey thanks for explaining it to us! The ultimate expression of the UK imperialist attitude yet again. Have you ever read documents from the 19th century British administration of India? You sound just like them.
Over a billion Islamic followers distributed across an absolutely staggering diversity of geographic, social, and political conditions, and you are going to summarize them by telling us what "most of them take" as "identity" and then educate us as to believers' "functional understanding." That's absurd, and embarrassing. Why produce such ridiculous fantasies? It's ridiculous. The ultimate expression of the theory-ego: make everything about me and my theoretical hobbyhorses, nevermind the actuality and corporality of concrete lived religico-socio-political realities spread across the globe. It's attitudes like this one that make it so difficult for committed and rigorously trained theorists to be taken seriously.
I'm talking about fundamentalist belief- not religious belief in general That was made explicit even in the quote you extracted! It was also phrased as an open ended question... to be filled in by the reader's own sense of what a functional understanding of a religion might be. And if anything I was basing it rather more on Christian fundies than Islamic ones. Sorry. But I presume it to be fair that any belief system operating under harsh economic and social conditions has the potential to be utilised as an ideological tool to further political goals, whatever the myriad subtleties of the books and practices of that religion.
Also- and it would be helpful if people actually read the posts made before responding in a fit of pique- I was quite clear about the following:
Also- and it would be helpful if people actually read the posts made before responding in a fit of pique- I was quite clear about the following:
dssdnt how on earth did you get that from gek-opel's statement?
when gek-opel says "be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian"
you say igek-opel is "tell[ing] us what Islamic followers worldwide actually believe"
when gek-opel says "it would be better to talk of a specific group under specific social and political conditions" and "the contents as such are so open to interpretation (as demonstrable in the range of Islams and Christianities in effect across the world)"
you say that is being offensively general, summarizing too much and riding a theoretical hobbyhorse. and then you go on to point out that there is "Over a billion Islamic followers distributed across an absolutely staggering diversity of geographic, social, and political conditions.."
you even use the same words! "social and political conditions"
it's actually a bit weird..you then say that gek-opel's argument is "The ultimate expression of the theory-ego: make everything about me and my theoretical hobbyhorses, nevermind the actuality and corporality of concrete lived religico-socio-political realities"
while gek-opel is saying we should "explicates the messiness and complexity of situations .... Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions"
when gek-opel says "be they fundamentalist Islamic or Christian"
you say igek-opel is "tell[ing] us what Islamic followers worldwide actually believe"
when gek-opel says "it would be better to talk of a specific group under specific social and political conditions" and "the contents as such are so open to interpretation (as demonstrable in the range of Islams and Christianities in effect across the world)"
you say that is being offensively general, summarizing too much and riding a theoretical hobbyhorse. and then you go on to point out that there is "Over a billion Islamic followers distributed across an absolutely staggering diversity of geographic, social, and political conditions.."
you even use the same words! "social and political conditions"
it's actually a bit weird..you then say that gek-opel's argument is "The ultimate expression of the theory-ego: make everything about me and my theoretical hobbyhorses, nevermind the actuality and corporality of concrete lived religico-socio-political realities"
while gek-opel is saying we should "explicates the messiness and complexity of situations .... Rather than seeing them in precisely the same terms as ourselves, under similar conditions"
wheninrome
Member
crackerjack
Well-known member
Whaaaaaaat! The west arms and allies itself with some hideous bigots? But I thought we were perfect and I just know that'd what Tea thinks because he says so over and over again.
Thank God you turned up to put us straight.
wheninrome
Member
Way to miss the point.
Mr BoShambles
jambiguous
Go on then..... what is the point?
wheninrome
Member
If youre going to make sarcastic comments about the political myopia of others then you should try not to be guilty of it yourself.
Both 'lashes' cases are horrific, but why is it that the less extreme example is headline news around the world for a week (and counting) and the other only garners a couple of paragraphs on page 13 for 1 day?