Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
All of the things I listed and then some. Islam is not compatible with Western liberal thought.

Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

In the loosest sense, yes. The things I listed are pretty much the building blocks of liberalism. Do you disagree?

Yes, because the building blocks of liberalism predate the things you listed, and that is before we get into matters of kind.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You don't need to be an atheist to understand that religion can lead people to do horrible things.

No, you don't. What is difficult to understand is why religion, Islam in particular, is nominated as the causal variable in certain cases.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The hard numbers show that there is a serious gap between what the average Muslim believes and the idea of universal human rights.

There is a significant gap between what the average person believes and the idea of Universal Human Rights.

 dogma wrote:
Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?

Freedom of religion needs to go. Freedom of conscience is okay.

 dogma wrote:
Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?

At no time have I ever claimed to have a disdain for Islam nor have I claimed that religion is bad in any way. I have done nothing more than state that current Islamic doctrine is not compatible with liberalism. That is a statement of fact (again, refer to the Pew polls I posted some time ago that you have time and time again ignored) and there is absolutely nothing you can offer to prove it otherwise. Every person deserves the freedom of religion, however Islamic doctrine does not allow that (hence why large numbers of Muslims support the use of execution for apostates). What does this mean? It means that the doctrine must change and it can only be changed by Muslims willing to do it, of which there are plenty.

Yes, because the building blocks of liberalism predate the things you listed, and that is before we get into matters of kind.

The things I listed are the foundation of liberalism. Since you disagree, please enlighten us why that isn't so.

No, you don't. What is difficult to understand is why religion, Islam in particular, is nominated as the causal variable in certain cases.

Because it is, as evidenced by what we see going on in the world.

There is a significant gap between what the average person believes and the idea of Universal Human Rights.

Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person." While you are doing that, please give me the evidence to prove that your claim that the average don't believe in universal human rights.


Keep on trying though, you're doing a somewhat admirable job at trying to "catch" me. I think you can do better though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Freedom of religion needs to go. Freedom of conscience is okay.

No, it doesn't.

Freedom of religion doesn't need to go. It just needs to end where human rights begin.

Let us agree to disagree on that then. I still believe freedom of religion need to be replaced by just freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Let us agree to disagree on that then. I still believe freedom of religion need to be replaced by just freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Let us agree to disagree on that then. I still believe freedom of religion need to be replaced by just freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

We already have both of those, thanks.

 jasper76 wrote:
So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?

None unless they any of the religious practice they took part in was a crime for any reason, and then the appropriate punishment. For instance, killing someone as part of a ritual will earn you the normal sentence for murder.

In a nutshell.
Where exactly is this thread currently at?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?

None unless they any of the religious practice they took part in was a crime for any reason, and then the appropriate punishment. For instance, killing someone as part of a ritual will earn you the normal sentence for murder.

So...basically how it already is in the US.

Gotcha.

@Hybrid Son: Well, in the US, we have freedom of religion, and people are still subject to the secular law.

I think you mean something by "there should be no freedom of religion" other than what I think you mean.

Do you care to elucidate your opinion? I'm not sure I've ever met anon-religious person who doesn't think freedom of religion is a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
In a nutshell.
Where exactly is this thread currently at?

Page 6

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you care to elucidate your opinion?

Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you care to elucidate your opinion?

Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.

Puhhhlleease.

The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.

Well, I agree with you that freedom of religion should end where breaking the law begins. That is a well understood concept in the US, however we do also have exceptions....like I think the Amish only have to comply with compulsory education through a lower grade than everyone else.

But in the US, these things are the exception, rather than the rule.

Further, and I know I've done this before, but I'd recommend you do at least a tiny bit of research in regards to the United States if you're going to generalize about our freedoms.

 cincydooley wrote:
The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.

I have been asked to elaborate. I did.
And I said nothing about the U.S. here, so go play with yourself, you are not the center of the world.

 jasper76 wrote:
But in the US, these things are the exception, rather than the rule.

It is not a question of it being an exception or the rule. It is a question of how it shapes people mindset. Freedom of conscience do not give people the impression they deserve special treatment because of their supernatural beliefs.

I think at this point we are just arguing semantics.

My opinion is that freedom of religion should end where breaking the law or violating other people's rights begin, and I take it we agree on this.

Sam Harris posts a breakdown of his Collision with Ben Afleck - Can liberalism be saved from itself.
An article he linked regarding needing reformers not moderates for muslims.

Reza Aslan
‏@rezaaslan
I shouldn't have used the word "stupid" in my interview with @CNNTonight I am really very sorry @donlemon and @AlisynCamerota

 cincydooley wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Did you miss the "radical"? That implies that yeah, I do know of non-radical (being one myself, although a more accurate term is egalitarian) and wasn't talking about them. You do know that there are radicals right, that *aren't* having a rational look at gender roles, and that it's causing substantial problems?

And sadly, that "some" in the United States is in the absurdly small minority.

Parental rights in the US aren't even remotely on the same footing. It's actually a bit scary how imbalanced it is. (Hyperbole incoming) In order for a father to gain custody of a child, the mother basically has to be a multiple time felon or presently incarcerated. Paternity/Maternity leave is fething small potatoes compared to the gross imbalance with custody and, honestly, initial choice regarding having the child in the first place.

Yeah I've seen numerous cases of it in the US, it's shocking. I'm pretty sure it's not as bad here but that could just be I haven't heard about it as much. That airline policy vid linked earlier was Australian so it may be just as bad, or just in different ways.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.

I have been asked to elaborate. I did.
And I said nothing about the U.S. here, so go play with yourself, you are not the center of the world.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Both Jasper and I have explained to you that this mythical society in which religious people arent exempt and still have religious freedom exists: it's called, amongst other places, the United States.

In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States. Again, I encourage you to investigate our freedoms sometime If you're going to attempt to discuss them with us.

While I'm hesitant to get in bed with Hybrid, I think I understand what he's getting at. By making a specific "freedom of religion" law, which adds nothing over "freedom of conscience/speech" laws it sets religion on a pedestal that separates it as worthy of special attention. If you already have enough basic freedoms that allow you to practice whatever religion or lack of religion you prefer, does adding a "freedom of religion" law do more harm than good? In the US there are definitely some problems with religion, atheists are constantly fighting violations of your church and state (think the recent air force discussion here). Does separating religion as being a special form of speech worsen this? I don't think it's much a part of what's making Islam untouchable however, as christianity is certainly discussed.

Disclaimer: atheist ; p

 Yonan wrote:
While I'm hesitant to get in bed with Hybrid, I think I understand what he's getting at. By making a specific "freedom of religion" law, which adds nothing over "freedom of conscience/speech" laws it sets religion on a pedestal that separates it as worthy of special attention. If you already have enough basic freedoms that allow you to practice whatever religion or lack of religion you prefer, does adding a "freedom of religion" law do more harm than good? In the US there are definitely some problems with religion, atheists are constantly fighting violations of your church and state (think the recent air force discussion here). Does separating religion as being a special form of speech worsen this? I don't think it's much a part of what's making Islam untouchable however, as christianity is certainly discussed.

Disclaimer: atheist ; p

Yeah, I am hesitantly on Hybrid's side (just this once) because the Freedom of Religion deal can, with the right backing and drive be used for fairly crap results.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/08/31/faith-healing-and-the-law/

is one that jumps out at me. It makes abusing your child at least somewhat legal, because of your religion. I am pretty against the whole nanny state deal, but if someone says "No thanks, I don't need help dealing with my son's diabetes, we have the power of prayer on our side." they should be locked up before they kill their kid.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
At no time have I ever claimed to have a disdain for Islam nor have I claimed that religion is bad in any way.

No, you've just claimed to be a liberal, and that:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I have done nothing more than state that current Islamic doctrine is not compatible with liberalism.

Which may as well indicate that religion, Islam in particular, is bad.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

That is a statement of fact (again, refer to the Pew polls I posted some time ago that you have time and time again ignored) and there is absolutely nothing you can offer to prove it otherwise.

No, it isn't. It is a statement of opinion based on a series of collected opinions. The results of a poll are factual (10 people checked Y box), but anything derived from them (10 people checked Y box, ergo...) is not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

The things I listed are the foundation of liberalism. Since you disagree, please enlighten us why that isn't so.

The foundation of liberalism dates back to ancient Greece, which existed at a time when "universal human rights" was not something people thought about; let alone believed in.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person."

Are you implying that a person is only a person if they belong to a given nationality?

It is quite obvious that I was referring to human beings in general.

 Yonan wrote:
Sam Harris posts a breakdown

Man writes self serving review of events on own website: news alerted!

 cincydooley wrote:
In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States.

Yep, totally sure you are much more aware of how things work in France than I am of how things works in the U.S.
But oh wait, I forgot, half of Dakka OT takes this song a bit too much literally. Why the hell do you believe I should have to look up to examples in the U.S. when I can point to examples in France and leave you the very easy work to think of similar event happening in the U.S.? Especially since France is really way less tolerant on religion than the U.S. anyway, so finding similar or better anecdotes from the U.S. should be pretty damn easy.
I mean, FFS, you did not even bother to check if you could just change France with U.S. and the argument would still work. Spoiler, yes it does! So now that it has been established that I apparently know more about how things work in your goddamn country than you do, can you just stop talking non-sense already?

 dogma wrote:
No, you've just claimed to be a liberal, and that:

Which may as well indicate that religion, Islam in particular, is bad.

Yep, my beliefs plant firmly in the on the liberal side of things.

Also, incompatible =/= bad; a distinction you are failing to understand in your increasingly comical attempt to get me to contradict myself.

No, it isn't. It is a statement of opinion based on a series of collected opinions. The results of a poll are factual (10 people checked Y box), but anything derived from them (10 people checked Y box, ergo...) is not.

That "series of collected opinions" is empirical evidence that that myself and others used to show that the current doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism. It is a conclusion based on hard numbers, but please, keep trying to prove otherwise.

The foundation of liberalism dates back to ancient Greece, which existed at a time when "universal human rights" was not something people thought about; let alone believed in.

Oh it does, does it? Gee whiz, I don't know what I would have done without your vast insight on liberalism (or as I like to call it, "looking on Wikipedia"). So bringing up the fact that liberalism "dates back to ancient Greece" has to do with what again? Remind me again, what exactly is your point?

Are you implying that a person is only a person if they belong to a given nationality?

It is quite obvious that I was referring to human beings in general.

Oh yes, my friend, I know exactly what you were referring too... And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your ridiculous claim.


Please feel free at any time to actually have a valid argument, because so far you seem to be having difficulty relaying a fully realized thought. If you can't do that, just move on. It is pretty obvious at this point it's pretty obvious you haven't brought anything to the discussion other than halfhearted semantics and conjecture.

As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.

Sorry for not pasting the article text, but I'm currently on my mobile:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?tid=HP_opinion

 jasper76 wrote:
As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.

Sorry for not pasting the article text, but I'm currently on my mobile:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?tid=HP_opinion

He raises interesting points and I agree that saying "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" is a bit too much, as there is plenty of proof that not everyone agrees with the extremists in their interpretation of Islam. The issue that comes up is that people want to reform Islam are under threat of violence for merely speaking their mind. The numbers show beyond a doubt that their ideas are supported by large numbers of their fellow Muslims. Of course, the promoters of violence and other extremism don't have to look far in their scriptures to find support for what they do (which was the case for ancient Jews and medieval Christians as well). The author Philip Jenkins talks about something called "holy amnesia" whereas a religion matures and adjusts over time to move past its violent roots (something all Abrahamic faiths share in their history) and I think there is some truth behind that.

No one can deny that followers of Islam have brought good into this world (except for algebra... because feth algebra!), but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious issues with some core tenements in their doctrine. Liberals, above all else, should be the ones to take issue with that and feel free to criticize Islam instead of worry about offending people (just for a little anecdotal evidence, no liberal I've met worries about offending Christians that denounce marriage equality).

If you haven't already, you should read Dan Dennet's book Breaking the Spell. I'm not a fan of his writing style, but it's an interesting book.

He talks about religions as being domesticated over time, which sounds somewhat similar to this "holy amnesia" perhaps. Similarly, I believe in this book iirc that he talks about humans being domesticated over time. So the violent ideas in religion are weeded out through selection, similar to wolves becoming dogs, and that the most violent genes in humanity are weeded out through the imprisonment or execution of the most violent people in society.

Just a tangeant here....it's an interesting book.

Like the article from Fareed.

Pretty much this in a nutshell:
The need for "reform coupled with respect" since "...the places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim".
"There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today. A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, and the protests are not loud enough."

Pretty much the same problem that can happen with any group: an aggressive vocal minority taking a group hostage and getting them painted with the same brush, sounds like #Gamergate.

Wow, was hoping to get a nice short definition of what it means to be "Liberal", if interested, read the link, I like how involved this gets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property" This initial definition seems rather shallow in comparison with what is later mentioned.

What is interesting is that to prescribe to Liberalism is to align yourself with a philosophy, so I would find it difficult to treat this as a moral high-ground compared to a religion since it is based on thinking this is the "right thing to do".

I think the best litmus test for any belief is to think "if this group got into power, what would it force on me as law?".