3 of 7
3
Trouble in Libya,Egypt
Posted: 13 September 2012 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Racism is if you reduce the individual to his racial characteristics. So discrimination on basis of religion is no racism; it is reducing the individual to the religion he feels that he belongs to. The question if somebody is violent or not should be attached to the person, not to his religious label.

Religion is not a racial characteristic (it is cultural*), at least not for me may be i have another definition for race.

*I have no problem to say that some cultures are better than others, cultural relativism is a horrible nonsense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2011-11-04

I agree that religion is not a racial characteristic.  But it certainly happens that persons can be identified with their religion, and thought to embody the negative aspects of the belief system, rather than their own personal characteristics.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:10 PM

That would mean that there are countries in the world were people tend to be more violent then elswhere, it means that they are violent by nature (wouldnt that be racism?)

No, it would not be racism. It’s either true or it’s false, but not racist. Calling them names, however, (unless you are using “moron” as the antiquated psychological term—which I doubt), is racist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Yes but that is caused by religion itself, they are more or less brainwashed over time, cut to shape to fit in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

No, it would not be racism. It’s either true or it’s false, but not racist. Calling them names, however, (unless you are using “moron” as the antiquated psychological term—which I doubt), is racist.

So the statement “Black people from Somalia are more violent by nature then other people” would not be racist, right?

So it is okay to see people who only have their place of birth in common as a homogenous mass with the label “violent” but its not okay to say that people who share an entire, highly specific worldview are violent?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2714
Joined  2011-04-24
Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:10 PM

You would have a very hard time showing that it is indeed the ideology that makes some people behave violently. What if it’s the other way around? What if violent people come up with violent ideologies?


That would mean that there are countries in the world were people tend to be more violent then elswhere, it means that they are violent by nature (wouldnt that be racism?) because if you say that their surrounding made them so then that would support my position, and i think that ideology creates violence.

And i indeed think that it is religion/ideology which causes violence, for example, everywhere were islam gets involved we have some morons which blow themself up or kill other people, and it has nothing to do with social status, or poverty, many of these men are well educated and wealthy, like osama bin Laden, other leaders of the Al Quaida and those who have flown the planes of the 911 attacks.
There is also not less violence in Saudi Arabia which is a rich country, there is (religion induced) violence against women, stonings and beheadings for nothing at all, and so on.

Therefor i also dont think that religion may only be some sort of a catalyst for violent behavior that is already there, but its cause.
Not only violence is caused by religion and ideology but also all sorts of stupid self destructive behavior especially if we look at Germany till 1945.

Yes there has been some antisemitism and nacionalism in europe already but it took a lot of work to go from that to Auschwitz, a World War.

Remember though Alexander,  there are Muslim countries which have very low levels of religious based violence; Azerbaijan, Albania, Uzbekistan and most of central Asia. These countries are relatively poor and unsophisticated, yet you can eat,drink whatever you want, listen to any music, see any films, have sex with whomever, and so on.

Maybe the people in those countries are not biologically predisposed to religious hysteria - which does seem to strongly vary among different ethnic and/or racial groups; they may however be roused to violence by other triggers.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2011-11-04

Not to disrupt the current flow of discussion, but I thought this interesting:

Another fellow involved in the making of the “bad movie” has been identified.  He is Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, formerly into things like bank fraud and meth cooking.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html

Talk about breaking bad.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2011-11-04

I think that this is a good summation of the entire incident, at this point:


http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya-egypt-and-the-butterfly-effect.html

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 12:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4573
Joined  2007-08-31
Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:10 PM

And i indeed think that it is religion/ideology which causes violence, for example, everywhere were islam gets involved we have some morons which blow themself up or kill other people, and it has nothing to do with social status, or poverty, many of these men are well educated and wealthy, like osama bin Laden, other leaders of the Al Quaida and those who have flown the planes of the 911 attacks.
(...)
Therefor i also dont think that religion may only be some sort of a catalyst for violent behavior that is already there, but its cause.

It’s the lack of orientation of young people, a conflict in values they are grown up with and how they see them applied. That can be true for poor and rich people. RAF terrorists and Mohamed Atta might have had very similar motives: personal frustrations hidden behind an ideological mask (marxism and islamism respectively). To see Islam as the cause of the violence is a very naive view.

Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:16 PM

*I have no problem to say that some cultures are better than others, cultural relativism is a horrible nonsense.

Cultural relativism is is not horrible nonsense, it only is when taken absolutely. Seems to me you have the personality trades of a potential terrorist…

George - 13 September 2012 01:41 PM
Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:10 PM

That would mean that there are countries in the world were people tend to be more violent then elswhere, it means that they are violent by nature (wouldnt that be racism?)

No, it would not be racism. It’s either true or it’s false, but not racist. Calling them names, however, (unless you are using “moron” as the antiquated psychological term—which I doubt), is racist.

That’s correct. If one would find that violence is related to racial characteristics of individuals, then it is not racism, but a fact. But to say this prematurely, before this is established science, e.g. when it is still based on probably methodologically bad research, is racism.

Alexander80 - 13 September 2012 01:51 PM

So the statement “Black people from Somalia are more violent by nature then other people” would not be racist, right?

So it is okay to see people who only have their place of birth in common as a homogenous mass with the label “violent” but its not okay to say that people who share an entire, highly specific worldview are violent?

It’s both not OK when only based on prejudices. Get the facts first, and if there are no facts to find, then refrain from quick conclusions.

PS
From one of TimB’s links:

78bbdaf5fc03c1db7e15d7aa270e7c63_600x400.jpeg

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 02:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Remember though Alexander,  there are Muslim countries which have very low levels of religious based violence; Azerbaijan, Albania, Uzbekistan and most of central Asia. These countries are relatively poor and unsophisticated, yet you can eat,drink whatever you want, listen to any music, see any films, have sex with whomever, and so on.

Maybe the people in those countries are not biologically predisposed to religious hysteria - which does seem to strongly vary among different ethnic and/or racial groups; they may however be roused to violence by other triggers.

Which have been communist countries and where religion was fought.
It is like in Bosnia were we have had muslims which have been secular and indistinguishable from other people, but now, some 20 years after the end of Yugoslavia we see a rise of religious violence, quran schools, radical preachers and so on.
Turkey for example is (or was?) a secular state but now i hear from turkish atheists that the radicals are gaining more support and are reorganising the country.

You also have to take a look at northern africa, all those movements for more freedom have been taken over by the radicals, these states are on the best way to become like saudi arabia, Iran etc.

Religion is the cause, not an excuse for violence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Islam as the cause of the violence is a very naive view.

Oh, okay Islam is not responsible for violence in any form, good whats, for example, with executions of homosexuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
Thats exclusively a muslim thing.

And now something from wikipedia (freedom of religion):

....Social hostilities were measured by religion-related terrorism and violence between religious groups.

The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion.

Of the world’s 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States Had some of the lowest levels.

If it would be genetic then why does it correlate with religion and not ethnicity, how is it possible that two groups from the same region (middle east, former Yugoslavia) handle things differently?

As Dawkins statet in the documentary of the same name, religion is the root of all evil.

Cultural relativism is is not horrible nonsense, it only is when taken absolutely. Seems to me you have the personality trades of a potential terrorist…

Relativistic behaviour towards culture is not a problem if its all about clothes, food, language and similar things, but not if we talk about human rights and democracy, these are either universal or not existing.
Their cant be 1/2 the human rights for woman, or non of them for unbelievers.

 

It’s both not OK when only based on prejudices. Get the facts first, and if there are no facts to find, then refrain from quick conclusions.

These are not quick conclusions these are Theories about religion which prove themself to be true through “experiments” every day.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 03:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4573
Joined  2007-08-31
Alexander80 - 14 September 2012 03:26 AM

Islam as the cause of the violence is a very naive view.

Oh, okay Islam is not responsible for violence in any form, good whats, for example, with executions of homosexuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
Thats exclusively a muslim thing.

Sorry, you are not reading what I wrote. First: it was about violence, about terrorism. Second: homophobia is not exclusively Islamic. Third: Before western colonisation most African cultures were quite liberal about homosexuality. Fourth: correlation is not causation.

Alexander80 - 14 September 2012 03:26 AM

As Dawkins statet in the documentary of the same name, religion is the root of all evil.

Dawkins is an authority in the area of evolution and scientific method, not in sociology or psychology of religion.

Alexander80 - 14 September 2012 03:26 AM

Relativistic behaviour towards culture is not a problem if its all about clothes, food, language and similar things, but not if we talk about human rights and democracy, these are either universal or not existing.
Their cant be 1/2 the human rights for woman, or non of them for unbelievers.

So cultural relativism is not “horrible nonsense”. To take a more stringent view on human rights and democracy is OK. And BTW, one of these human rights is freedom of religion.

Alexander80 - 14 September 2012 03:26 AM

These are not quick conclusions these are Theories about religion which prove themself to be true through “experiments” every day.

This is too stupid to react upon. Get mature.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2012-08-27

People use their talents in a bad way.. This saddened me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

This is too stupid to react upon. Get mature.

It is stupid, but thats not my fault, it simply happens because people work in those mysterious and insane ways, proving that Iam right, every single day.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2011-11-04

If a religion caused violent behavior, I would expect that a great percentage of people of that faith would engage in violent behavior. 

I think it is more likely that religions can serve as a vehicle and/or a kind of incubator or support system for a smaller percentage of their members, who are predisposed, for whatever reason, to engage in violent behavior.

Personally, I think that Islam is uniquely suited to “serve” in this way, but Christianity has certainly served in this way, historically, and probably to a greater degree, so far (in the broader scope of history).

Christianity has evolved, to the extent, (as in the example of the current topic) that the Christian extremists are only inciting the violence, whereas, extremists who are Muslim are associated with actual murder.  Obviously, if you think about it, there are surely other factors in play, than just purely religious ones.

Still, religion appears to serve as a convenient vehicle.  And it remains to be seen how Islam may or may not evolve.

[ Edited: 14 September 2012 10:28 AM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3