Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What do you think they're saying? Penske and I seem to agree.

As enchanted as I am about the prospect of once again arguing here about when it is that members of some large group have the responsibility to denounce other, extremist members of that large group, I'm going to have to pass. I said my piece when we argued about whether lacrosse players should be marching to protest the loutish behavior of Duke's lacrosse players, and again when we argued about whether prosecutors should be marching to protest the actions of the Durham DA, and I don't have anything to add on the subject.

Yeah, because lacrosse players often call upon other lacrosse players to kill non-lacrosse players. And thousands upon thousands of lacrosse players across the globe unite to support and die for the cause.

Pretty stupid analogy, Ty.

If it's relevant, as you claim, that Muslims oppose suicide bombings, then why is it not relevant that their opposition is rather passive -- much less so than, say, their opposition to unflattering depictions of Islam or Muhammad?

When Slave says Muslims are violent, you say that no, lots of Muslims really hate and oppose suicide bombings and other violent acts. When I point out the dearth of Muslims actually giving voice to such opposition, you talk about Duke lacrosse.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Those are the goods?

"Send me a picture" and "what would you like for your birthday"?

You are absolutely right. I'm sure that the intent behind these emails was entirely innocent -- perhaps this was a Big Brother kind of deal? -- and Foley, knowing that, though it best to resign rather than claim his innocence of any wrongdoing.

Or are you suggesting that the all-powerful Democratic machine forced him out?

Any given five minutes on the FB is more offensive than that. Sheesh.

Would you vote for ppnyc?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, because lacrosse players often call upon other lacrosse players to kill non-lacrosse players. And thousands upon thousands of lacrosse players across the globe unite to support and die for the cause.

Pretty stupid analogy, Ty.

If it's relevant, as you claim, that Muslims oppose suicide bombings, then why is it not relevant that their opposition is rather passive -- much less so than, say, their opposition to unflattering depictions of Islam or Muhammad?

When Slave says Muslims are violent, you say that no, lots of Muslims really hate and oppose suicide bombings and other violent acts. When I point out the dearth of Muslims actually giving voice to such opposition, you talk about Duke lacrosse.

Apparently you didn't notice that I wasn't involved in the argument you think you're stepping into.

I thought Wonk and Slave and Penske were arguing about whether Islam is inherent violent. Wonk pointed out that other religions are violent, too. Penske answered that Islam is more violent now. Underlying the frisson of tension between them was a fairly fundamental question about whether the current state of the Middle East owes more to the culture of Islam or other factors, like who controls the means of production, etc. Sadly, they got a little angry at each other, but it was -- is -- an interesting issue. Obviously, there are a lot of violent Islamic radicals out there. Is it Islam that makes them violent, or something else? So I pointed out that there are a lot more non-violent Moslems, and that there are non-Moslem suicide bombers. My point was so powerful that Penske and I were soon singing Kumbayah together.

I don't really equate radical Islamist suicide bombers and Duke lax players. I think you know that. Just in case, I'll make it explicit.

I find this business of condemning x and y for not speaking out against z's actions about as interesting as arguing about whether politicians are hypocritical. If you want to argue about it, go nuts. Just not with me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, because lacrosse players often call upon other lacrosse players to kill non-lacrosse players. And thousands upon thousands of lacrosse players across the globe unite to support and die for the cause.

Pretty stupid analogy, Ty.

If it's relevant, as you claim, that Muslims oppose suicide bombings, then why is it not relevant that their opposition is rather passive -- much less so than, say, their opposition to unflattering depictions of Islam or Muhammad?

When Slave says Muslims are violent, you say that no, lots of Muslims really hate and oppose suicide bombings and other violent acts. When I point out the dearth of Muslims actually giving voice to such opposition, you talk about Duke lacrosse.

In addition we are not just talking about a religion where there is separation between church and state. Islam plays a direct or at least materially indirect role in many governments across the Middle East and Asia (and also France). The consequences of the silence of the Moderates and the allowance of the radicals to control the voice (and gain a larger than proportionate share of influence) is much greater as a resut.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
....... frisson ......

Well played, playa.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In addition we are not just talking about a religion where there is separation between church and state. Islam plays a direct or at least materially indirect role in many governments across the Middle East and Asia (and also France). The consequences of the silence of the Moderates and the allowance of the radicals to control the voice (and gain a larger than proportionate share of influence) is much greater as a resut.

Which reminds me that our federal government will not fund stem-cell research.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which reminds me that our federal government will not fund stem-cell research.

Were you peeing when you had this thought?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
A lot of people, when tallying these things, count Catholics separately. those people would probably include the Pope.

Catholics worldwide are about 1.1M. Muslims total (shi'a and sunni) are approx 1.2M (the range is 900-1.4, depending on what numbers are beign cited).

If Catholics and Protestants are counted separately then shouldn't the Shia and the Sunni be counted separately?

The Sunni and Shia split long before the Catholics and Protestants and Islam is a much younger religion.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apparently you didn't notice that I wasn't involved in the argument you think you're stepping into.

I thought Wonk and Slave and Penske were arguing about whether Islam is inherent violent. Wonk pointed out that other religions are violent, too. Penske answered that Islam is more violent now. Underlying the frisson of tension between them was a fairly fundamental question about whether the current state of the Middle East owes more to the culture of Islam or other factors, like who controls the means of production, etc. Sadly, they got a little angry at each other, but it was -- is -- an interesting issue. Obviously, there are a lot of violent Islamic radicals out there. Is it Islam that makes them violent, or something else? So I pointed out that there are a lot more non-violent Moslems, and that there are non-Moslem suicide bombers. My point was so powerful that Penske and I were soon singing Kumbayah together.

I don't really equate radical Islamist suicide bombers and Duke lax players. I think you know that. Just in case, I'll make it explicit.

I find this business of condemning x and y for not speaking out against z's actions about as interesting as arguing about whether politicians are hypocritical. If you want to argue about it, go nuts. Just not with me.

Okay -- I'll let you argue that last point without arguing back.

But, seriously -- you think that "violent Islamic radicals" are motivated by who owns the means of production? Somehow, that fails to explain, to me at least, why the scion of a staggeringly wealthy construction family, for example, would promote violent extremism. Or wealthy, supremely well financed Wahhabi clerics would preach it. Or why such violence occurs in so many different places with so many different characteristics -- from Indonesia to Pakistan to Holland to Algeria to Nigeria and throughout the Middle East.

I believe this violence traces directly back to the way in which Muslims are being taught. Not to the Koran (I'm not a big fan of Penske's rantings), because the Koran like the Bible can be read in any number of ways. But to the people who are preaching the Koran in a particular way -- generally, the Wahhabi clerics and similar types who appear to be dominating the education of young Muslims. And, of course, to the absence of a conflicting message from other Muslims -- which, unlike you, I do not see as merely a failure of "x and y not to criticize z", or however you put it, but rather a contributing, causal factor to the culture of violence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But, seriously -- you think that "violent Islamic radicals" are motivated by who owns the means of production? Somehow, that fails to explain, to me at least, why the scion of a staggeringly wealthy construction family, for example, would promote violent extremism. Or wealthy, supremely well financed Wahhabi clerics would preach it. Or why such violence occurs in so many different places with so many different characteristics -- from Indonesia to Pakistan to Holland to Algeria to Nigeria and throughout the Middle East.

I believe this violence traces directly back to the way in which Muslims are being taught. Not to the Koran (I'm not a big fan of Penske's rantings), because the Koran like the Bible can be read in any number of ways. But to the people who are preaching the Koran in a particular way -- generally, the Wahhabi clerics and similar types who appear to be dominating the education of young Muslims. And, of course, to the absence of a conflicting message from other Muslims -- which, unlike you, I do not see as merely a failure of "x and y not to criticize z", or however you put it, but rather a contributing, causal factor to the culture of violence.

My reference to the means of production was an effort to invoke non-cultural explanations relating to things like economic development and geography, etc. For example, I think that Wahhabi views are far more influential than they would have been had the Wahhabis not had the good fortune to find themselves on such an enormous amount of oil. Saudis have used that money to proselytize, and the Saudi government has encouraged these activities in other countries to deflect threats to their own rule.

I'm open to an argument that Islam has characteristics that promote violence, relative to other religions. But I'm with wonk when he points out that other religions have been violent, too. Ten years or so of suicide bombings doesn't seem to me to make the case.

eta: I see something in the suggestion that the problem is not Islam per se, but in the Islamic world's encounter with modernity. Fundamentalism is, perversely, a modern phenomenom.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe that the Tigers are Hindu, in part because they evicted Moslems from Jaffna a few years back, which tends to undermine what you are suggesting here, but I'll admit that I'm no expert on the subject.

I believe the Tamils are Hindu and the Sinhalese are Buddhist. But I think the dispute is cultural more than religious.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Not to the Koran (I'm not a big fan of Penske's rantings), because the Koran like the Bible can be read in any number of ways.

Nice politics of personal destruction. Well done. I wasn't ranting. History shows that Mohammed was violent amd militarisitc and in part used military means,. oppression, killing and threats of death to spread his Islamic religion. He also married a 5 year old (even taking into account that shorter life spans/expectancy probably lent to people marrying/procreating a little bit younger than they do today, 5 seems a little....welll..... creepy.). This is the person through whom God/Allah's voice is distilled in the Koran. All I am saying is, for what that is worth.... No one here would take issue with calling Koresh or Jim Jones a loon, I'm not sure why Mohammed gets so much leash from the liberals on the board. His behavior, according to accepted history, doesn't necessarily seem to warrant it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe the Tamils are Hindu and the Sinhalese are Buddhist. But I think the dispute is cultural more than religious.

So?

eta: Which is to say, I agree with the general proposition that suicide bombers are motivated by things other than religion. But if I were claiming that suicide bombings were the measure of a religion's propensity to violence, I would then have to deal with the fact that the Tamil Tigers lately have been (at least one of) the foremost practitioners of such mayhem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I'm not sure why Mohammed gets so much leash from the liberals on the board.

Notwithstanding that I am unfamiliar with said leash or its length and would -- if I lived in the Pacific NW and drank more Washington State boxed wine, like yourself -- decry the sort of politics of personal destruction involved in making that sort of remark, I am so convinced by the truth of what you say here that henceforth I will not engage in public displays of images of the [putative] prophet Mohammed.

Kumbayah, y'all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So?

eta: Which is to say, I agree with the general proposition that suicide bombers are motivated by things other than religion. But if I were claiming that suicide bombings were the measure of a religion's propensity to violence, I would then have to deal with the fact that the Tamil Tigers lately have been (at least one of) the foremost practitioners of such mayhem.

Hindus can be violent. They killed Ghandi, the Airline Pilot Prime minister, they razed that Mosque, and have killed quite a few Muslims in riots. That is why the conflict in the Sub continent is so nasty because both Islam and Hinduism can be very violent religions. Where as you don't see many Buddhist suicide bombers. They may kill themselves, but not other people.

However, since most of the Hindus live in Hindustan (India) they tend not to mess with other countrys that much. The exception being Ceylon. Bali is Hindu, and even though it is part of Indonesia, since they are all concentrated on that one Island, there isn't that much conflict. I don't believe there are a lot of Hindus on the other islands of Indonesia, or in South East Asia, but as usual, I really don't know what I am talking about.