All of them, what is wrong with reform?
Then you don't know what islamophobia is, would be my conclusion.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
All of them, what is wrong with reform?
Then you don't know what islamophobia is, would be my conclusion.
Religion might need reform. Its made by humans so of course it must have flaws. But if your premise is based on recent events then yes it is wrong and you don't understand the real reasons behind the rise of ISIS.
If it has flaws then why is reforming it such an Isalmophobic idea?
The reasons people believe ISIS came into being correspond exactly to their world views and who they would prefer to blame for their existence.
That's precisely the point. It's completely conjured up by humans to explain what they don't know about their existence.
Was posted on facebook by someone.
We are not the ones claiming that ISIS are to do anything with religion, they do it themselves. How can/ why would you deny their own motives and justifications?.
I find the quoted post a bit stupid, to be fair.
While clearly ISIS has something to do with Islam, saying that Western countries have nothing to do with it as stupid as saying that IS aren't Muslim. By invading a functional country (and yes, while dictatorial it was far more tolerant, democratic and civilized than Saudi Arabia for example) and creating a dysfunctional one, it allowed groups like AQ and then IS to flourish. Also, by either bombing, putting economical sanctions or invading Arab countries in the last 25 years, it isn't a surprise that many Muslims got anti-Western feelings and then became more radical/extremists. And they got appealed by groups who do direct interpretation of some of the most extreme verses in Quran and Hadith.
Of course other less relevant factors got a part, like the number of people increasing in that region while the economy stagnating.
Ultimatelly, I think that ISIS is mostly a byproduct of Saudi Arabia ideology and West invading/bombing Arab countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?_r=1
Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.
Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.
The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born jihadists. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of Islamist Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.
One might counter: Isn’t Saudi Arabia itself a possible target of Daesh? Yes, but to focus on that would be to overlook the strength of the ties between the reigning family and the clergy that accounts for its stability — and also, increasingly, for its precariousness. The Saudi royals are caught in a perfect trap: Weakened by succession laws that encourage turnover, they cling to ancestral ties between king and preacher. The Saudi clergy produces Islamism, which both threatens the country and gives legitimacy to the regime.
One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense transformative influence of religious television channels on society by accessing its weak links: households, women, rural areas. Islamist culture is widespread in many countries — Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania. There are thousands of Islamist newspapers and clergies that impose a unitary vision of the world, tradition and clothing on the public space, on the wording of the government’s laws and on the rituals of a society they deem to be contaminated.
It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.
All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since ISIS is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to jihadism when the influence of Fatwa Valley and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?
Is curing the disease therefore a simple matter? Hardly. Saudi Arabia remains an ally of the West in the many chess games playing out in the Middle East. It is preferred to Iran, that gray Daesh. And there’s the trap. Denial creates the illusion of equilibrium. Jihadism is denounced as the scourge of the century but no consideration is given to what created it or supports it. This may allow saving face, but not saving lives.
Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books.
The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.
Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.
The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born jihadists. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of Islamist Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.
One might counter: Isn’t Saudi Arabia itself a possible target of Daesh? Yes, but to focus on that would be to overlook the strength of the ties between the reigning family and the clergy that accounts for its stability — and also, increasingly, for its precariousness. The Saudi royals are caught in a perfect trap: Weakened by succession laws that encourage turnover, they cling to ancestral ties between king and preacher. The Saudi clergy produces Islamism, which both threatens the country and gives legitimacy to the regime.
One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense transformative influence of religious television channels on society by accessing its weak links: households, women, rural areas. Islamist culture is widespread in many countries — Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania. There are thousands of Islamist newspapers and clergies that impose a unitary vision of the world, tradition and clothing on the public space, on the wording of the government’s laws and on the rituals of a society they deem to be contaminated.
It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.
All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since ISIS is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to jihadism when the influence of Fatwa Valley and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?
Is curing the disease therefore a simple matter? Hardly. Saudi Arabia remains an ally of the West in the many chess games playing out in the Middle East. It is preferred to Iran, that gray Daesh. And there’s the trap. Denial creates the illusion of equilibrium. Jihadism is denounced as the scourge of the century but no consideration is given to what created it or supports it. This may allow saving face, but not saving lives.
Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books.
The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.
Was about to post this as well. Saw this on Harris' twitter along with another I posted in the other thread. His point being the west again propping up both sides in the conflict.
Just got lost in the Islam thread for about half an hour or so reading people's arguments and I found it quite interesting but the more I read the more pointless the arguments seem.
I find it slightly depressing that most of the world believes in this nonsense, and I'm talking about all religions here. I mean people dedicate their whole lives to interpreting these different texts and it's all just make believe. Even if you don't agree with me you've got to admit there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it's anything but.
I find it slightly depressing that most of the world believes in this nonsense, and I'm talking about all religions here. I mean people dedicate their whole lives to interpreting these different texts and it's all just make believe. Even if you don't agree with me you've got to admit there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it's anything but.
Its really a grave mental disease for the easily led. The sooner we shake this off like a bad case of fleas, the faster we will advance as a species.
I would really love to know how is the percentage of religion membership in this forum. I think that more than half of regulars in current events are atheists/agnostics. I doubt that there is an another forum (of course, not counting the forums which are for that purpose) with similar distribution.
Out of the people I know, in Ireland and friends here from all over the world, I can think of maybe one or two people who still goes to mass or takes their religion seriously. Now this is a slight difference to being an atheist as some of these people would still maybe claim that they are christian etc. on a census, but at the end of the day they don't practice and would admit to being somewhat, if not overly skeptical about the whole thing. They just don't mind being labelled as it helps them fit in in a community that is traditionally Catholic like in Ireland for example, but even this is becoming less common.
Chinese people often look at you like you have two heads if you say you believe in God. As a coworker said to me recently "we believe in science".
I think the term "realist" may be better, many of the posters here still have some religious beliefs, but they also realise that 2,000 year old texts constructed by committee and all the associated ceremony etc don't fit with the world & the knowledge that exists today. Saying that, I'm an atheist
I'd say the majority of the Caf's membership are atheist/agnostic. There are only a few Christians, myself included, and a bit more Muslims and that's about it.
Proof that Manchester United is, indeed, backed by the devil.
It recently caught my attention that we still have religious schools for kids in Sweden. They are increasing as well with more islamic schools. I didn't even know there were christian schools. In my opinion kids should have the right to a secular school until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
Matt Ridley in The Times
Crazy to think that not so long ago, you would have been slaughtered for that. Thank man free thinking came about.
A new faith school opens and closes every month round here. The former college, which is a prominent building, stands empty after the 907th all girl Islamic school opened and closed in no time last month. Its surely some sort of tax scam.
I've heard many arguments down the years, particularly from my sister who has three kids, that religion is good for them. I honestly don't buy that either. Kids have plenty of great fairytales to keep their imaginations going, and they're not fairytales that have horrible consequences, like burning in hell.
For me, that's the most insidious part of it - teaching it kids when they are most impressionable.
In what way would we advance as a species? All wars would magically stop and humans would stop being violent, selfish, and greedy? All humans would stop killing themselves through drugs, alcohol, bad diet? Systematic abuse of children by their parents and other psychotic persons would disappear? Exploitation of people and the destruction of environment would all just go away? In which area exactly would our species advance?
I definitely wouldn't want religion to be abolished. It's part of mankind's history - positive or otherwise. Imagine how boring the world would be if it was one homogenised mass of "atheists and vegans"?
It wouldn't though. There are still a lot of things which will seperate people. Political ideologies, nationalism etc.
Saying that, I think that both religious and nationalist feeling will go down this century. They won't dissapear, but they will be taken less seriously, and with the globalization process, world will continue becoming a smaller place. When people live in other countries, the nationalist feeling decrease in average. When people gain a high standard of living, the religious feeling decrease in average. Maybe that is for the good, but impossible to know what will exactly happen.
Humans have an ability of screwing things with or without religion.
For me, the depressing thing about it is that even some of the most fervent religious folk agree with you, in the case of every religion, except their own. Talk to a Christian about Mormonism, and they'll agree that it's nonsense. Talk to a Muslim about Scientology and they'll agree that it's nonsense and so on. But despite the fact the they find most other religions ridiculous, they see theirs as righteous and true. For me that makes it worse. They are locial and critical when it comes to all but their own religions, in many cases.
If that happens I'd start believing in god.
Edit: there would still be economic and social left/right liberal/conservative battles!
Even as someone who dislikes religion with a passion, I can't disagree with these points. Those individuals that are nuts enough to take religion to the extremes would just find something else to latch onto. If religion didn't exist our race would just find other reasons to create delusions through fear of dying, and continue to kill each other and ourselves over and over. Human nature is the key culprit.
The state of modern higher education.
Goldsmiths ISOC Facebook page said:
...
that statement is hilarious. Fair play to their sense of humor. no, not really
To be fair to them they're doing a great job of spreading Maryam's message for her. If I were here I'd have them on payroll.
Excellent point. Deep cover atheists?
This is why religion just won't do for me. Education is meant to open your mind, but no matter how well educated one is, it's all too easy for religion to close his mind.
The US stands out so much! Pleasantly surprised at Latin America.