General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIslam, as it is practiced by a majority of muslims in the world, is a regressive force.
Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 09:54 AM - Edit history (11)
Majority Muslim countries stand out for their lack of social progress on issues like gay rights and women rights. Generally, progress on such issues is more related to levels of development. The more advanced a nation, the more these nations adopt progressive social policies. The massive exception is places where Islamic political movements hold sway. Despite high levels of economic development, these places remain socially backwards or massively regress when these movements come to power (Turkey, Qatar, UAE etc...).
There are of course very tolerant and accepting strains of Islam, but the undeniable fact is these find very little popularity with the Muslim world as a whole. Denying this does nothing to solve this problem or aid minorities affected by it.
"Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers."
What can be done about it? I'm not entirely sure myself, I do know that trying to dismiss this problem as unimportant does nothing to help address it. At minimum, it is intolerable that we consider allies and sell weapons to nations with human rights records like Saudi Arabia.
"But Kurska, it is all about Human development and the impact of colonialism"
Alright, lets test that theory. Lets compare areas of the world that have broadly similar HDI's to the middle east; South America, east Asia (excluding Japan/Korea) and South East Asia.
https://www.yahoo.com/sy/ny/api/res/1.2/daVWANQcHZI4WAQPYIQvdw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/
Notice something? Despite having similar levels of human development, the middle east is still massively behind the rest of the world on this issue and I assure you, other issues like this. You can clearly see the HDI plays a role, EXCEPT in areas where political Islam is powerful, where it doesn't seem to matter. The charts speak for themselves.
Again, HDI plays a role yes, except in areas where political Islam is powerful, where it doesn't seem to make a difference.
The Middle East is even worse than Sub-Shara Africa, which has the world's lowest levels of HDI and was heavily impacted by colonialism.
On edit.
I'm seeing this argument in particular.
"But Kurska, you can't expect a nation that built higher HDI on an export economy to not be a socially regressive hell hole"
Okay, lets compare the economic export map of Brazil
To Egypt
One of these nations has gay marriage, the other has homosexuality outlawed. The difference is not an export driven economy largely based on raw materials, the difference is the influence of political Islam.
Funnily enough, Brazil and Egypt both have a similar percent of their economy tied to exports (13%). Once more, the difference is the power of political Islam.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
Gawd...
ericson00
(2,707 posts)K/R for your bravery posting this.
Some things to help your case:
(all dark red countries are Muslim majority, and most red countries (dark and light) are Muslim majority.
all countries except Nigera in this map are Muslim majority (Nigeria is plurality Muslim or Christian, bc the ratio is nearly 1:1)
the heavily Muslim MENA region is the most anti-Semitic
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Sorry if that wasn't clear.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)nt/
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
Gothmog
(144,940 posts)Your claim is so sad and wrong that it is sad.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Such tolerant "liberals" around here.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and its political/societal influence a lot, and should absolutely do so. As we can do about Islam.
I'm no more friendly to Christian majority nations that have backwards social policies, but those are rarely defended on DU. That is the point.
cprise
(8,445 posts)and other extremists was very convenient for our "national interests abroad" and cold war policy. Demonizing secular ME states has made the situation much worse. And that's not even getting into the effects of directly invading countries in the region.
I suggest you read up on the history of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia since the start of the cold war. You should also look at the estimates of dislocation, refugees and premature death since US invasion and sanctions began in the early 90s.
Then I would invite you to imagine that the tables were turned. If you're not willing to grant that, then I'd have to question your motives. Anyone who wants to use maps and identity politics to state their case, but averts their eyes from more telling data like body counts and shattered infrastructure is spreading ignorance.
You apparently want people to respect gay rights as an accomplished fact, not from any sort of empathy and understanding. Or is your identity politics above the others?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Look a the history of South America, just as many dictators supported and incredible amounts of foreign intervention. Blaming native sentiments approving of oppression completely on western intervention is asinine.
No, we didn't make things any better. We were supporting outright fascists in South America and yet still they made social progress after those dictators fell.
Treating political Islam as something inflicted on Middle East via western intervention is asinine. Political Islam has been the dominant cultural force in the region since Al-Ghazali destroyed the Islamic golden age.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Muslim countries have had major movements toward democracy and modernization, and imperialists stamped them out. They were considered too much of a threat if they followed their own interests and possibly bolster the situation of our major rivals.
This is like trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to consider the conditions and atrocities in pre-1917 Russia. Or the west's policy of pitting Chinese warlords against each other, and spreading opium addiction there. In the ME, we have rapidly switched sides back and forth in regional conflicts there. That is considered a form of genocide.
In Asia, there are still examples of extreme nationalism that clearly wouldn't have arisen without western imperialism (which is a big word that I realize I'm not supposed to use here, lest I sprout another head--its not used on TV after all) that treated the local populations like pawns or in good times, like children.
More recently, our government precipitated a hard-right turn in Iran when our president threatened them with nuclear attack.
Its hard to know what is more asinine: Blaming the west, or trivializing the effects of repeated invasion and blockades and starvation. Or of mindsets like "full-spectrum dominance", "shock and awe" and "the New American Century". Democrats like phrases such as "making America the Indispensable Country", a euphemism for "No non-aligned countries allowed on planet Earth". Some scholars call America a cargo cult; I think there is some truth to that, as its members have very little critical faculty left.
At the end of the day, its the same "Native Americans were savages who killed each other" argument. There is no reckoning about technological superiority or any associated sense of responsibility. And no mention of smallpox blankets, either.
This time the frontier is the oilfield.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)is the asinine part. Maybe you should educate yourself about the longer history of that region. The rejection of natural causality by madmen like Al-Ghazali is where this mess started. Their backwardness did not begin with colonialism. Their treatment of women is rooted millennium old tribalism and a focus on a scripture that, while progressive for the time, is woefully out of place with the modern world (like most scripture is).
Again, you want to make this about the west, but it is a thousand years older than either of us. You ignore the fact that western power games have affected every part of the world and yet, this one stands uniquely against the tides of modernization and progress. As if it was the only place to ever have a government overthrown for western corporate and political interests.
You're rather speak a thousand words against the west, than utter one phrase in protection of gay people in Saudi Arabia, such drivel is what I really find tiring. Political Islam thrives, because it has resources that we need, but also because it has a legion of well meaning westerners always willing to virtue signal about how terrible imperialism was while Yazidi die on mountains and gays rain from the roof tops.
Eliminate our economic need for them by developing our own energy resources and then we can quit coddling their backward ideologies. The sooner we start treating places like Saudi Arabia as the international pariahs they deserve to be the better.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)with the post. Your first sentence in the body of the reply says it all. From the initial division of the Middle East, (Sykes-Picot), through the CIA sponsored intervention in Iran, through the constant interference from 1967 on, the US and Europe have interfered continuously.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 06:07 AM - Edit history (1)
...is pushing for an all-out war between the U.S. and evangelicals or Mormons.
We don't have large religious denominations claiming that prophecy requires a global confrontation with Mormons or evangelicals.
People aren't being beaten or killed in this country because they are Mormon or evangelical or because someone else thinks they are.
And we don't have a presidential candidate seeking to ban Mormon or evangelical immigration.
It's not about pretending Muslims are infallible saints or that the countries you list are utopias...it's about not wanting to give aid and comfort to hate campaigns.
And those countries would likely be much the same no matter which religion ruled them. The repressive features of those societies all predated Islam. Essentially, the issue is a long-standing inclination towards patriarchal sexual paranoia.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)"war against Islam;" thats what the Islam-defenders on the left always do; try to shut down debate by implying all critics of Islam are like the most extreme crazies from the annals of Free Republic.
One can criticize Islam and simultaneously abhor hate crimes against innocent people who might happen to be Muslim.
On immigration, we also don't have potentially large waves of immigration of Evangelicals and Mormons.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The countries you list are bad places among other bad places in this world. They aren't uniquely evil, and since the form of Islam practiced in those places wasn't always repressive, the possibility of change from within(the only possible way of changing things in such places)still exists.
And I see parallels in what you are pushing for here with the kind of rhetoric deployed during the decades of western "criticism" of "communism"
or as it actually was, right-wing nationalist dictatorships that flew red flags out of convience).
The intent is to imply that most or all of the world's problems are the result of the actions of some designated enemy.
Nothing good ever comes of trying to break the world up into "good" and "evil" nations.
It's fine to criticize any country in which regressive policies occur, but there are also limits
A)To the degree we in "the West" are entitled to claim moral superiority over anyone else
B)To what we as outsiders can do to change things in other regions.
"Communism" didn't end because of outside condemnation.
Nothing anyone said about the Soviet model from outside had anything to do with it.
It ended because people in those countries rose up to resist it, and because Mikhail Gorbachev made it clear that he would do nothing to preserve the old repression.
Something like that is what is needed to change things in Muslim countries.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I think that is a massively flawed recollection of history. Communism fell, in large part, because of the appeal of the culture and way of life of the first world.
In response to your first point, I find moral relativism very tiring. If you're not willing to admit a country that forbids women to drive or executes gay is a backwards terrifying place, then I don't think you should be comfortable calling yourself a progressive. Either you don't find those issues particularly appealing or you're saying your beliefs are based on something other than a moral foundation. Either answer is troubling.
As a gay man, maybe I'm biased because I have skin in the game. But I view a nation that won't murder me for my love infinitely morally superior to one that would. Then again, equivocating about it is certainly easier when you don't have said neck on the line.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But that's not what you care about. You just want the west to keep militarily intervening in the Arab/Muslim world, despite the fact that the last thirteen years have proved that western military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world can NEVER lead to liberalism there. You can't introduce tolerance and inclusion as badges of conquest.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to executions. It's cute to declare you have such limits for our freedoms in mind, but you need to specify and state your 'limits'.
Do such limits apply to other minority groups when they object to abuse? Or is it just LGBT?
What of South Africa, I personally boycotted them and they returned the favor. Do you claim that was wrong because we were 'outsiders' condemning them? Didn't global pressures help bring about the end of Apartheid?
Or is it ok to boycott South Africa but wrong to boycott The Kingdom?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not gays who want a war against the Muslim world, so go ahead and I am in solidarity with you.
What is crucial is to separate principled opposition to repression from calls for military intervention.
History has proven that outside military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world can never have anything but reactionary effects.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)They're backward, they're less developed, they do barbaric things, therefore their culture is bad and inferior to ours.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)crapping on Christians. Double standard.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Islam just as much as we criticize Christianity; however, this "new atheist" bullshit led by people like Sam Harris, who claim that Islam is especially and uniquely bad compared to every other extant religion is problematic.
cprise
(8,445 posts)They aren't setting the news agenda, or moralizing to me on TV.
Atheists are also barred from holding high public office in a number of US states. So I don't think atheists are legislating my life, either.
If I lived in a different country, the focus of my criticism might be different.
OTOH, I guess its easy to direct hate and distaste at populations who have almost no power our everyday lives.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Men can wear anything they want.
Women are forced into marriages here. Men are not.
Women can be beaten in public for cheating on their husbands. Men can cheat on their wives.
Unmarried Muslims can be arrested and imprisoned for going to a hotel room under prostitution laws if they cannot prove they are married, even if they are boyfriend/girlfriend or engaged.
And let's no go into how the Muslim majority here treats its Chinese, Indian and non-Muslim Malay minorities.
Oh, I'm Jewish too. If I go to Israel and have an Israeli stamp in my passport, I lose my right to re-enter the country due to their allegiance to the Arab League.
Yeah, Malaysia is considered a moderate Islamic country too.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts) Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #7)
Post removed
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Just the ideology they live their live by to varying degrees...
JI7
(89,241 posts)kcjohn1
(751 posts)You do realize majority of muslims live in 3rd world countries, with colonialism history?
Why do you think western world is so progressive? Do you think it has anything to do wealth and education? Why do you think the 3rd world doesn't enjoy the same progressiveness?
Diagnosing the problem as you have reminds me so much of the white burden. Next you will be telling us we need to take over those countries for their own benefit.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Many Gulf nations are incredibly rich. Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan are far closer to first in terms of human development than poor regions of Africa.
Nor does it have anything to do with white vs. people of color. Asian Nations like Japan, Korea and China are worlds better on social policies (though far from perfect) than the majority of the Muslim world. Same story from Latin America, even the most economically and developmental backward nations with long histories of colonialism are miles ahead of the Muslim world on human and minority rights.
Are you really going to claim that Bolivia is more economically advanced than Egypt? Or that Latin America has seen less influence via colonialism in the past 300 years than the Muslim World? Trying to tie it purely to these issues doesn't mesh with fact.
The point is that Muslim majority nations are well behind where their human and economic development says they should be.
ck4829
(35,039 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)The natives who still hold the reigns of power and shape the regressive policies than guide their nation. Not the impoverished masses of workers they import, who still probably hold more socially modern views than the rich people they build for.
Meanwhile, the most prolific and violent Islamic radical leaders have generally come from Middle class or very well off families. Bin Laden didn't grow up poor.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)They lucked out in Oil. There is little development in those countries. No democratic institutions or anything like that. If anything oil wealth has become burden.
Majority of countries in sub-saharan countries are non-muslim majority countries, and they seem to have the same lack of progress as those muslim countries. You seem to be seeing what you want to see.
I was thinking the same. Gulf countries didn't modernize over time -- it happened virtually overnight not too long ago. They were thrust into modernity from an isolated, non-technological, traditional, pastoral, society in the space one or two generations.
The upheaval of centuries of lifestyle and tradition was tremendous.
I'm not religious or conservative. Nor am I naive. Religious fundamentalism is antithetical to my values no matter what its flavor.
America and Britain survived waves of fundamentalism during the "Great Awakenings" in the 17th and 18th centuries. In some ways, rebellion against the stifling fundamentalism of the Great Awakening informed the revolution of ideas that led to American Revolution.
Maybe the "Islamic World" will get it's shit together.
We shall see.
The contortions re the inconvenient sub-Sahara data are pretty telling IMO.
Gothmog
(144,940 posts)That branch of Judaism does represent may faith any more than the idiots you cite represent Islam. Do you even know any Muslims? I do and work with them both at the party and professional level. Your claims are simply false and based on bigotry and ignorance
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and SSA is mostly non-Muslim:
and we don't see non-Muslim militant groups from Sub-Saharan Africa going around the globe acting violently in the name and/or cause of their religion.
Also, if its about wealth, why are so many Islamist terrorists and sympathizers of Islamist views and militancy, on board with evil jihad?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)ck4829
(35,039 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)On HDI SSA would be much darker than the Middle east. South America would be a Similar shade to the middle east.
On colonialism South America and SSA would be much darker.
Yet, where is the place you see the vast majority of the red and light red? It isn't the areas with the least amount of human development and it isn't the areas that were impacted most by colonialism, it is the areas where political Islam is powerful.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)But I will for one post for the benefit of other people to counter your propaganda.
OP topic is social development and progress. Not about terrorism. All the social progress that has happened in the western world has been gradual over the past 100+ years. Most of the muslim and 3rd world countries are just gaining their independence in the last 50-60 years. There is little development. Just 5 years ago gay marriage was being faught in the most rich country in the world. 50 years ago black people couldn't even drink of water faucets.
Progress takes time.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Including areas that have lower GDPs and were more viciously impacted by colonialism.
How long are victims of repression in those countries supposed to wait, before we admit something is seriously wrong here?
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Jamaica, Singapore, Uganda, ?
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)much with the laws, and have large gay tourism. Barbados is a perfect example.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Do you believe the propensity for terrorism is somehow divorced from social progress?
Why have you chosen the words: "Agenda" and "Propaganda"?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The Eurasian East of Iran was mostly converted in colonial bloodbaths.
Iran and Afghanistan were Zoroastrian and Buddhist and wre forcibly converted. But the worst conversion massacres occurred on the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan and Bangladesh are now Muslim because Muslim conquerors committed mass genocide.
Now, do tell me why criticizing the ideology of Islam is racist.
1939
(1,683 posts)When you blame colonialism for all of the ills in the world.
1. Spain and Portugal were colonized by Islam.
2. southeastern Europe was colonized by Islam.
3. Most of northern Africa was colonized by Islam.
4. India was colonized by Islam.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)minorities than the powers that colonized them?
I suppose it could be called rejection of the colonizer's values but it only hurts their own populations.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)We should NOT take over these countries, I am personally opposed to having anything to do with regressive countries at all.
My hatred of countries that persecute women and gay people probably keeps me from being a real liberal. It is disgusting to call someone a racist for pointing out human rights abuses, and boy do we have them here too! We have some very white Christian sects that treat women and gays like dirt and our so-called civil rights don't apply in these cases, where girls are raised up to be owned as nothing but brood mares and kept out of regular society.
Oh, and I never said I liked Christianity, I despise any pre-text for denying people human rights, the fact that this happens in this country doesn't negate the problems pointed out in the OP. And whatever else is thrown at people who dare give a damn about oppression even if it happens in countries with majority "liberal-preferred" religion.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)You have cause and effect the wrong way round.
It is ironic that you hint at the phrase "white man's burden", the protectiveness towards Islam exhibited by some seems to me to be a rather self-absorbed form of white guilt, which I find to be little more than "the white man's burden" turned inside out.
It seems that some believe it is impossible for these areas to have unwholesome characteristics that have emerged independently from the West's influence. Naturally this idea is idiotic. Human beings all over the place have a very repetitive tendency to come up with extremely bad ideas all by themselves.
enough
(13,255 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Criticize Christianity for being misogynistic, homophobic, sometimes violent, and anti-democratic? "YEAH, YOU TELL 'EM!"
Criticize Islam for being misogynistic, homophobic, sometimes violent, and anti-democratic? "OMG, YOU ARE SUCH A BIGOTED SHITLORD!"
840high
(17,196 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)You are a wordsmith
romanic
(2,841 posts)Islam really is a sacred cow amongst some liberals.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It gets old to keep seeing the willful denial of this double standard.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are using that to attempt to paint one religion as worse than all others and encourage bigotry against that group. They don't really care about the issues they claim to care about. They want to convince others that terrorism is inherent in Islam.
They never do say what we should do about it either. One wonders if it would be a right wing solution.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is for "The West" to lecture the Arab/Muslim world as if we are entitled to see our region as "their betters".
The least benign would be that their is a desire to restart The Crusades and crush the Muslim world into submission. As if it were even possible to win a conflict like that.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to prove Bill Maher right every single day.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)I don't even see how it effectively contradicts any of the comments made about Islam.
"Christianity is bad, too..."
Therefore....? Stop talking about Islam? Because it's as bad as Christianity?
By that standard shouldn't we be not be talking about Christianity?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)For all the words that get spent discussing privilege, it's surprising that so many people still can't grasp the difference between minority groups and majority groups.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Which is what?
When majority groups murder people it's bad, but when minority groups do it it's....?
What? What is the difference?
There isn't one. There IS no difference.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"stupid black people"? The former might get you a hide here (or might not), the latter would probably get you tombstoned - and for good reason. Neither bigotry is good, but bigotry against a minority that faces discrimination is a lot worse and a lot more dangerous than bigotry against a dominant majority. If a friend said to you that they really hate Christians you might roll their eyes; if they told you that they really hate Jews you'd probably cut off the friendship. Do you really see no difference?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)The topic under discussion is the attitude of Islam towards social policy.
Do you think the statement "Islamic states routinely call for the execution of gay people" is equivalent to the statement "stupid black people"? You are aware that the first is a prosaic description of reality and the second is meaningless?
The former might get you a hide here (or might not), the latter would probably get you tombstoned - and for good reason. Neither bigotry is good, but bigotry against a minority that faces discrimination is a lot worse and a lot more dangerous than bigotry against a dominant majority.
1 - no, the former wouldn't get a hide of any kind.
2 - what makes you think the last part of your statement is true? You think the danger posed by bigotry depends on the size of the population against which the bigotry is aimed?
I'm sorry, but that is not true. The idea has a certain compelling "schoolyard" pseudologic to it but that's not how bigotry works in reality.
The danger that a particular form of bigotry poses depends on what the content of the twisted templates that bigots use for misrepresenting the "other" to themselves and what those templates subsequently allow them to do to the object of their bigotry, not the population size of their victims, nor the prevailing social attitude to their victims.
From your assertion we can easily dismiss all necessity for feminism in all populations in which there are more women than men.
(Incidentally, I am regularly engaged in discussions online with fundamentalist Christians who are happy to tell me they despise gay people. I'm gay. I don't roll my eyes or "tombstone" them (by whatever mechanism may be available...). I inform them of my sexual orientation and ask them to explain what they mean. Invariably they are conflating me with an imaginary version of me that does things they would be quite justified in hating and more often than not leave the discussion on polite terms with me, uttering reassurances that they already understand that it's foolish to make generalisations about people. This is an experience I have yet to see repeated on DU on any subject. You may imagine my surprise, and my increasing cynicism regarding certain other movements.)
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)I think my post made it pretty clear that I think "stupid black people" is similar to the statement "stupid white people", other than the fact that one group is a dominant majority and the other a minority that faces general discrimination. Hence why those two statements are treated differently. Your post, and the post I originally responded to, where claiming that, all else being the same, bigotry against both groups is equally problematic. Which is, frankly, nuts.
I said: "bigotry against a minority that faces discrimination is a lot worse and a lot more dangerous than bigotry against a dominant majority". You seriously think men are generally discriminated against and that women dominate our society?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's literally illegal in Saudi Arabia for a woman to drive a car, or even walk to the corner store for a jug of milk without male family escort.
If you're gay, you could be executed.
If you dare to say anything critical about Islam, you'll get beheaded in Chop Chop Square.
Over there, they're the ones doing the oppressing.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That's distinctly different from being discriminatory against human beings.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)terrible the people are.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)because they want a global war against the Islamic world...a war that(as the last thirteen years of western intervention proves)could never be won and could never make any lives better if it somehow WERE won.
You sound as if you want Islam abolished. That is neither a realistic nor a sane objective.
It is, however, an imperialist goal.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Christianity, OTOH, tends to be sneakier about that. Instead of chopping the heads off of LGBT people, they simply push families to ostracize them and drive them to suicide. Out of love, of course.
Religion in general has a way of being amazingly toxic.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)No need today which is worse or better. They all suck.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)I personally don't see much benefit it from it, but could care less if people choose to go that route.
However identifying Islam as the cause of social problems and terrorism is misidentifying the route cause. Just look at this country. Do you think Christianity was the route cause of slavery? Ignorance and lack of social progress was the cause. You could argue Christianity slowed down progress, but progress was made because there was economic improvement, which allowed the masses to be less ignorant through education, and that is all from democratization of institutions. These things take long time, and unfortunately majority of the world is not even on the 1st base because of lack of development.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Based on your theory, South America and most of East Asia should have the same level of regressive social policies as the Middle east, this just isn't the case and you know it.
HDI plays a role, but denying the influence of political Islam just doesn't mesh with the facts.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)What exactly is your point? What are you defining as regressive social policies?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)kept it up until the last. Since we're talking and all.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)BTW how could muslims "start" slavery when islam has only being around 1,500 years? You know they had slavery way way before that including Roman, Greek, Egyptian times...?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)out that the African slave trade which Europe and the Americans took part in had begun centuries prior to their involvement and that it was started by Arabic Muslims. The African slave trade is obviously a subset of slavery which has of course existed prior to the establishment of either of those faiths and prior to the establishment of the Jewish faith which has a foundation story of liberation from slavery.
The Arabic African slave trade was the first and most enduring African slave trade. That's not 'my point' it's just historical fact.
Both religions have texts that support slavery, all three actually. Christians and Muslims exploited those texts ruthlessly and did so for centuries. Muslims were first in the game, Christians excelled in the game. Facts are just facts, kid. If you have to rewrite the facts to sell some narrative you are not talking history but fiction.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)When religions becomes political forces, they open themselves up to political criticism. The fact is, political Islam has been the most successful political force at preventing social progress in the world for years now.
Political Christianity is dying, because we successfully confronted it. Yet there is zero will on the left to do so with political Islam.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)In sub-Saharan Africa for instance virulent homophobia has been fomented by fundamentalists of all stripes.
Why Africa is the most homophobic continent
US evangelicals have been accused of turning their attention to Africa and whipping up homophobia with lurid stories about child molestation, bestiality, rape and deadly diseases. Kaoma reflected: "In America the conservatives are losing. In Africa they are winning and the progressives are on the retreat. People are not paying attention to how world religions are taking advantage of globalisation. Those opposed to gay rights can connect very easily with African groups opposed to gay rights. In the past they had to travel; now they send an email and share tactics. Conservatives argue that gays are out to destroy 'traditional family values'; as Africans encounter fast-changing values, this language sounds very attractive."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/africa-homophobia-uganda-anti-gay-law
Where Homosexuality Is Rejected
Publics in Africa and in predominantly Muslim countries remain among the least accepting of homosexuality. In sub-Saharan Africa, at least nine-in-ten in Nigeria (98%), Senegal (96%), Ghana (96%), Uganda (96%) and Kenya (90%) believe homosexuality should not be accepted by society. Even in South Africa where, unlike in many other African countries, homosexual acts are legal and discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, 61% say homosexuality should not be accepted by society, while just 32% say it should be accepted.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
sibelian
(7,804 posts)do not habitually call for the persecution of demographics.
There are religions that do, and there is ONE, currently, world-wide, which openly practices bigotry against women and gay people as a matter of religious faith with fatal consequences for the persecuted.
bdwker
(435 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)In contrast, regionally, residents of the U.S. and Canada are most likely to say that military attacks against civilians are sometimes justified. Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified, followed by residents of Haiti and Israel (43%).
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
The highly popular 'Muslims are bad' position promoted by many in the US works in favor of those that want to promote more war. Expect much more war in our future with many more Muslims as the victims.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why do you support such a school of thought? The choices are not war or support horrific atavism and bigotry. There are other choices.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)What system should we blame for that bigotry?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I provided more evidence. War is a major issue these days, you know.
I can play your game: why do you support war and the murdering of civilians?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your assertion is that the choices are war or pretending that genocidal and bigoted cultures are super progressive. Those are not the only choices. You present them as such because your objective is to evade discussion of the philosophy being discussed. One has to assume that you put the philosophy above the persons.
The humans most often abused and murdered by humans claiming to follow Islam are also Muslims. I personally support the man being subjected to the lash for being gay and I do not support the man who holds the whip. Both are Muslims. Which do you support? It really can't be both.
What you do here is reductive. In the face of very real and important human rights issues you resort to characterization and hyperbole. You seek to obscure the facts that you don't want to admit to.
Several Islamic countries execute LGBT and they say they do it for Islam. I do not support that. Do you?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Nothing is worse. War is the worst manifestation of bigotry.
The US deliberately seeks out and arms the worst elements in the Middle East. Much of the Middle East had been much more secular and peaceful. Look at the history of the 20th century and who were the most violent then.
The US very much helped spread the ideology. The US armed the fundies to fight the commies. The US overthrew Saddam and helped overthrow Qaddafi. The US is currently supporting the fundies against Assad.
Most of the crazies were concentrated in US supported Saudi Arabia. With the constant US brutalization of the entire region, that set up an environment where conservative religious views can much more easily spread.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/eye-opening-graphic-map-of-muslim-countries-that-the-u-s-and-israel-have-bombed/
Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.]
Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).
The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.
These very same people that the US has so badly abused are now being condemned on DU for being inferior. With this attitude that is so prevalent in the US, it should not be surprising that the US is the number one war mongering nation in the world.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East."
right, all criticism of Islam is intended to "promote war."
There you have it, OP; in a nutshell, why so many on the left constantly give Islam protected status; they think they're avoiding war, even when the war is waged on us. Some of these types would rather we experience more terror if it means avoiding any use of the military.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)You know, our aggressive actions against the Muslim world have been going on for many decades. We should worry about our own behavior instead of congratulating ourselves for being superior to those barbarians over there, like Guiliani:
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)there certainly isn't the same tolerance that is expected for islam
kcjohn1
(751 posts)I agree about how scary these polls are, and something should be done about it.
But Islam has being around for 1,500 years. If this was not an issue 100 years ago, then the primary factor can not be islam.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Islamic majority countries versus say the US, England France and their acceptance of Islam?
I think the beheadings throughout history of nonconverts to Islam would repudiate the notion that this is a recent problem.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)You see this in the fact the oldest communities are in Muslim countries.
Only 52% of Americans view Islam favorable. This to me is the more maddening part because there should be little to no excuse for ignorance in such a well developed country. I give a bit more leeway to people in the 3rd/2nd world because the general wide ignorance due to lack of developed institutions and secondly their experience with for example Christians have not being of the best (e.g Iraq war, dominionism, colonialism, etc).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is not only recent.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And paying the jiyza tax because they're not Muslim.
Stuff like that from the Quran...
840high
(17,196 posts)
demosincebirth
(12,530 posts)ck4829
(35,039 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)
The Iraq War
Healthcare delivery
Social stratification
Protections for the environment
I see things like this from time to time, these polls are almost always invariably about chopping hands off, enacting Shariah, etc. I think a poll like this would not go over very well with almost anyone though. This is potentially problematic for us, we won't find a beneficial solution as long as we convince ourselves Muslims have different mindsets than non-Muslims.
"What can be done about it?" Muslims aren't a hive mind and while Muslim majority countries have atrocious practices, they aren't "not us". We should stop treating the Muslim psyche like it is different than the non-Muslim psyche for starters, there is certainly a religious reason and motivation for Islamic violence just like there is when Muslims do good in the world, but it isn't the sole reason, and acting like it is as unhelpful as dismissing it.
(There is an unconscious attempt to portray Muslims as 'different' and even 'alien' from us, it's a bias and it's clearly showing both in the polls cited and in this very thread. And here's the problem, we really won't find a solution as long as we think this, as long as we don't want to see commonalities and parallels. A good and happy solution anyway.)
kcjohn1
(751 posts)The solution is not to look at Islam. Progress comes from 3 things. Economic development. Education. Democratization. Those 3 things feed off each other, and if successful, all these problems go away. Unfortunately this will take time, and we most likely won't see it during our life times.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Yes those play a role, but politically regressive forces play a massive role aswell. I provide a very good example in my OP.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Who are rich not because of development, but because of oil. If oil didn't exist these countries would not be any different from sub-Saharan countries. They basically cheated and skipped 3-4 levels.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Again, there is a massive difference, despite having a similar HDI.
There are even pockets of progress in Sub-Sharan Africa, which is well below the middle east on these metrics. However, these pockets of progress are almost entirely absent from the Middle East.
Gothmog
(144,940 posts)Do you have any idea as to how regressive and repressive the ultra-orthodox community is in Israel?
This is exactly what has not been happening in the self-segregated Islamic communities in modern Europe. Radicalisation and more extreme versions of Islam are emerging at higher rates despite the robust establishment of the three processes you mention, therefore there than can be no meaningful causative connection.
You have no real basis from which to choose the avoidance of discussing the content of Islam at all.
What is it that you think will go wrong if we describe Islam's homophobia as homophobia?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Here in the US and in western democracies we have become more liberal and progressive (much to the sadness of republicans and christians).
Islam is a crutch used by many in power to hold onto said power. The only way to change people is education (something else conservatives here in the US hate - they think it is 'liberal').
Wars, hate, etc aren't going to change people. Showing them a better way and explaining why their ideas are stupid will; look at how many christians here in the US now have changed their tune on gays, blacks marrying whites, etc because they became less ignorant through education and showing them that jesus wouldn't kill em dead just because they didn't beat up people who are different than them.
The world is seeing the last gasp of fundie islam as technology floods the world with education and showing that people are just people and not tools of made up gods.
True Dough
(17,255 posts)Yours is one of the best posts in the thread. That "last gasp" of fundamental Islam that you refer to does not make it insignificant, of course. It involves large masses of people still clinging to archaic and pernicious ideology (I won't endeavor to put a number on it). The adoption of more progressive views could take another generation or longer. Change is gradual, frustratingly gradual, even with advancing technology.
I believe socio-economics and politics do play significant roles in some of the abhorrent practices in the Middle East, but Islam, at least with Wahhabists and other fundamentalists, is also at the forefront.
That said, Canada has welcomed 28,000 Syrian refugees since last year. Australia has taken in 25,000. No acts of terrorism ensued. Screening was in place through the UN and respective federal governments, so it's not like in Europe where millions of unvetted refugees -- including existing criminals -- flooded over borders.
Many of the existing Muslims in Canada, numbering almost 1 million, and in the U.S., estimated at 3 million, embrace Western values as they settle in. Maybe mom and dad retain more hard-line views, but their kids invariably start to blend in with their Western peers. Even if they're wearing hijabs, they become enamored of pop culture and social media, often get involved in organized sports and other extra curricular activities, drink alcohol, engage in premarital sex, befriend gay people, etc. They often drift toward more progressive stances due to peer pressure.
Anyway, here's an excellent column by the National Posts' Andrew Coyne with a great overview of where we stand in the war on terror:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-war-that-cannot-necessarily-be-won-but-must-be-fought-all-the-same
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 03:35 AM - Edit history (2)
On that subject, this is an interesting study which finds a strong relationship between 'religiosity' and anti LGBT opinions.
(As an aside, I can remember un-wed mothers and homosexuals being personally denounced from a 1960s Scottish pulpit - one of the ugliest spectacles I've ever witnessed.)
The Global Divide on Homosexuality
Greater Acceptance in More Secular and Affluent Countries
Age is also a factor in several countries, with younger respondents offering far more tolerant views than older ones. And while gender differences are not prevalent, in those countries where they are, women are consistently more accepting of homosexuality than men.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
Squinch
(50,918 posts)
PlanetaryOrbit
(155 posts)Why is Turkey so anti-Christian? Compared to the other polled countries, it's an anomaly.
jpak
(41,757 posts)Saudi Arabia should be at the top of the list.
not Turkey
(at least 4 now)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)There's a list on the OP in which Turkey is less demanding of draconian punishments than other Muslim majority countries. Are you saying Saudi Arabia is more liberal than that?
In practice, the non-appearance of Saudi Arabia in poll results is probably because the country is too authoritarian to allow polls to be freely answered.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We need to stop meddling in their affairs, invading their countries to steal oil, and slaughtering their people. Iraq is a perfect example of a secular Islamic country radicalized by US policy.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Never mind the fact that it was us that destroyed it in the first place, totally unprovoked.
The neocon list of nations to destroy are Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran. The US is making great progress in destroying those nations and we can expect more progress on that front in the future.
We will continue to bomb them, and also arm and support many of the worst elements in the region. As the region gets progressively worse, we will make that an excuse to declare ourselves superior and also an excuse for some more bombings.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)Far as i know all countries we "invaded" still sell their oil for money.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)EX500rider
(10,810 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That you think 'Stealing oil' means digging up the oil fields and moving them out of the country?
Oil companies were allowed to come to the oil ports and pump all the oil they wanted, unmetered. Otherwise known as stealing it.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Iraq was a massive GOP money laundering operation, as well as an opportunity to steal natural resources.
Do you believe GW Bush had honorable motives for his invasion? Lemme guess, the WMD were moved to Syria, right?
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And subsequent oil theft?
The Bush Administration GAO admitted in 2007 that unmetered oil was still being stolen 100,000 to 300,000 barrels a month.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11
http://www.alternet.org/story/51218/how_much_iraqi_crude_oil_is_being_stolen_mystery_of_the_missing_meters
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1622785,00.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17056&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=#.V42jorgrKUk
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)“It would be inappropriate for HMG [Her Majesty’s government] to enter into discussions about any future carve-up of the Iraqi oil industry,” he said. “Nonetheless it is essential that our [British] companies are given access to a level playing field in this and other sectors.”
UK government officials called in a team from BP for a briefing about the prospects for the Iraq energy sector on 23 January 2003, two months before the invasion, which ended in May.
Later that year, the British oil company started a technical review of the Rumaila field, the second largest in the world. By 2009 BP had won a service contract to raise production on the field, which has 20bn barrels of recoverable oil.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/us-and-britain-wrangled-over-iraqs-oil-in-aftermath-of-war-chilcot-shows
alain2112
(25 posts)While that scheme would certainly take care of the Islam issue, it's not what I would expect from a group of leftists.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)that's just a way to shut down the conversation.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Response to Kurska (Original post)
closeupready This message was self-deleted by its author.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)To eliminate the need for/reliance on repressive theocracies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia
ericson00
(2,707 posts)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But overwhelmingly most Muslims reject terrorism.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)And a large minority can be found supporting terror acts if they further the cause of Islam
(this cause always being presented as defensive, as we all know Islam cannot be offensive and imperialistic)
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)The original text, the Quran, contains hundreds of verses which proclaim Muslim supremacism over non believers, admonishng believers to subjugate the inferior infidels. A programmatic religious 'racism' = Religionism?
And the system has been locked by the original guru by saying the text is from god and absolutely intangible.
Then come the hadiths or Sunnah. These books were written 200 years after the Quran by a handful of people who went to see people who were supposedly descended (after about 10 generations) of the people who knew Muhammad. To think that, filtered by the consensus opinion of ten successive generations, the words of these 'witnesses of the future' has even a minimal degree of reliability is a joke. If it were not enough, it's is reported the caliphs routinely paid the composers of these hadiths to post-justify their own beliefs and attitudes. But, believe it or not, this Sunnah ragtag bunch of grandmothers' gossip is revered by the Sunni (of the Sunnah) 90% majority of the Muslim world. And the Sunnah is a text surpassing the Quran in medieval brutality.
So we have two regressive texts, one violent, vague and irreformable, and the extremely violently medieval Sunnah which constitutes the cultural identity of the Sunni majority . Good luck reforming this poisoned chalice.
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Worse than evangelical Christians. Sorry, it's the truth, no need to walk on eggshells around the topic.
You can blame it on whatever you want, but the root cause is teachings that are incompatible with a free and open society, just like with radical Christians.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Rooted in medieval rejections of natural causality and rationalism following an age of impressive scientific achievements. Not just to the last 100 of Colonialism.
This is a point many people fail to understand.
Doodley
(9,048 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)OK then. Some kind of eternal peace..
Doodley
(9,048 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Raped women forced to marry their attacker? Maybe best not to report the rape.
A Dutch woman raped in Dubai or Qatar was sentenced for illicit extra marital sex.
If Islam was teching good behavior, how come young males sexually frustrated in Muslim societies have such an abnormally high frequency of rape offense? Rape cases in Norway and Sweden are disproportionately perpetrated by Muslim offenders.
Islam doesn't provide a moral compass, Muslim societies just provide a deterrent to report crime.
Doodley
(9,048 posts)Just said to love your enemy, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of God. The Christian Right does not tend to believe that if the overwhelmingly support Republicans who are pro=war, pro=guns, anti-healthcare and aid for those who need it. I ask again, where is the Christian moral compass?
We could use 10,000 examples of Americans killed by guns in the past year. Don't tar a whole religion with the same brush.
JI7
(89,241 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I do not think Christianity provides a useful moral compass beyond common, shared humanist values.
But I'm pretty sure Islam instills destructive, hateful supremacist dictates in its unfortunate believers.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Here in the UK we have a long and honoured history of purported (often strident) Christians like Thatcher, Blair and Cameron supporting, appeasing and selling arms to the execrable Wahabists.
Moreover, the general population (64% self-identified Christian) doesn't particularly care.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae
David Cameron has boasted of his efforts to help sell “brilliant things” such as Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia on the day the European parliament voted for an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/uk-saudi-arabia-relationship-under-growing-strain
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)...a very big threat. No?
And how does a population that is constantly interfered with (to put it mildly) find the generosity of spirit to pursue progressive goals?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Christianity has had the Renaissance: An age of great intellectual curiosity, an age of inter-mixing between Christianity and pagan ideas and influences, an age of massive artistic productivity, the age that laid the philosophic groundwork for what would eventually become "science" 100 years later, and so so much more... Powerful cultural memes that echo in western society to this day.
(That isn't to say that everything was great: Such scholars threaded a thin line between being a celebrated revolutionary thinker and being a heretic who should be put to death.)
The christian Renaissance was triggered by an intellectual hunger for the wisdom of the past, for babylonian, egyptian and greek sources. (Especially egyptian and greek.) And by the 15th century, such old books became available to european scholars by way of trading-routes with the Byzantine Empire.
And after some re-interpretation (and mis-interpretation due to dating-errors) it was found that this wisdom was complementary to christian wisdom.
What Islam needs is such a trigger, such a desire for new ideas, for ideas outside of the realm of what's considered acceptable, an age of cultural and intellectual experimentation and curiosity.
There have been islamic Renaissances in this or that country, but they were small and isolated and without wider significance.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)It kinda peaked back in the 12th century. Read up on Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Andalusian polymath, for example.
It was because of more liberalising Muslim thinkers who said there was no conflict between science and faith that Wahhabism came about in the 18th century to combat. Unlike the Counter-Reformation in western Christendom, which failed to halt the Protestant Reformation, Wahhabism was Islam's counter-reformation, and sadly, it succeeded.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)one-way trip to my Ignore List. Buh-bye.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)That includes Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, etc. Every religion that depends in large measure on identifying oneself through clothing or ritual sets us apart from one another.
They are the 'cross' we must bear to advance as a species.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The OP here and the OP there are trying to push Hillary to go anti-Muslim.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)but its not; read the effin polling;
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/17/rel8a.-.2016.pdf
"Terrorism"
7/13-16/16
45% Hillary, 51% Trump, remainder "neither/no opinion"
"ISIS"
7/13-16/16
40% Hillary, 53% Trump, remainder "neither/no opinion"
Trump has zero FP experience; he should not be winning on those issues.
People just don't want to see newspapers printing the words "President Trump." If the GOP can paint Democrats as soft on terror, than we'll have to get used to terms like that, "Trump Administration," etc.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We don't need to co-opt Trump's anti-Muslim agenda any more than FDR needed to intern the Japanese(historical fact: the main reason FDR did that was that Earl Warren, the 1940 GOP vice-presidential candidate and current governor of California, was trying to make himself into "presidential timber" by pushing for the persecution of Japanese-Americans).
There is a need to be against any type of repression...but that isn't what this OP and the other OP are actually about.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)As long as they aren't Christian and white.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)
Angel Martin
(942 posts)
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)
ericson00
(2,707 posts)ck4829
(35,039 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)
American muslim are our voters, and we need those votes.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)Because what good is a Dem party if an increasing portion of its constituency is virulently anti-choice, and anti-woman? Sure they'll vote Dem for now, but either they'll push Democrats in a more socially regressive direction, or they'll go Republican again (as they did before 2004) once the GOP starts courting them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)post. Islam is, by a magnitude of 100, way more regressive than Christianity. I would think that American Muslims want to keep the jihadis out every bit as much as everyone else does. If not, they don't belong here.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)sadly, I think I was wrong.
modem77
(191 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)If I were to draw the same conclusions from those maps about countries with black-dominated rule that you draw from those maps about countries with Muslim-dominated rule, I would be correctly identified as a flaming racist.
Fortunately, I do not.
On the other hand, I am not pushing an anti-Muslim agenda, nor am I willing to divide important Democratic Party constituencies to achieve it because THAT WEAKENS OUR PARTY.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)nor do black-majority countries have these kind of apostasy laws:
nor is sub-Saharan Africa (black Africa) as virulently anti-Semitic:
etc.
and Islam is not a race or ethnicity! It is a religion, and for adults, religion is voluntary, race is never voluntary.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Name a developed black ruled country with regressive social policies, I can name 5 regressive high or medium HDI nations that are dominated by political Islam. The point is that social progress is deeply tied to economic progress, except in areas with strongly regressive political forces tied to religion (the best example is Islam).
That is why calling Islam a progressive political force is laughable. Political Islam is the force that links all these inexplicably strongly second or borderline first world nations that still have social policies out of the third world (which could actually be an insulting comparison to many third world nations, that still manage to be more socially advanced than places like Saudi Arabia).
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Some people are trying to pit supporters of one set of core Democratic issues, i.e., LGBT rights, women's rights, the sanctity of the establishment clause etc., against supporters of another set of core Democratic issues, i.e., the eradication of racism, religious tolerance, opposition to imperialism/military occupation, etc..
It is some people's hope that those of us who see racism and/or religious tolerance as important issues will EITHER accept semantic nonsense about "political Islam" (shorthand for saying it really isn't about religious bigotry) and/or (disturbingly ethnocentric) crap about Saudi Arabia being "more socially advanced" than the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and separate out our hatred of anti-Islamic bigotry from our hatred of racism etc. OR that those Democrats for whom LGBT rights and/or women's rights are their primary issues will see us for whom racism and/or religious tolerance is a primary issue as their enemies.
It is Machiavellian divisive BS whose only goal is to foment hatred of Islam.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I just want oil. How dare I be concerned about those people.
You find objective information offensive, so you shout imperialist. It is name calling, not an argument.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)at this rate, horses will starve all over the world.
It hasn't been much more than 20 years that gay people could be jailed for physically expressing their love in this country. When I was born, they were still chemically castration gay men. I watched one of my best friends die of AIDS and his parents wouldn't even go to his funeral. I hate to burst your bubble but we ain't that progressive here.
So no I am not buying it, particularly when your little diatribe hardly stopped at the persecution of gay people but was instead a wholesale attack on Islam.
no_hypocrisy
(46,037 posts)protested the Shah and then took control of the American Embassy in Tehran and took hostages.
The only reference until then was "I Dream of Jeannie" and that was Hollywood altogether.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)doing so well on DU.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Your bigotry is deserving of every consideration.
See how that works? Oh please, don't bother trying to convince me to condemn a billion fellow humans.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)no whining about religious bigotry when the target is something other than Islam. ONLY Islam gets a pass from supposed progressives. It's time for you and others to ask yourself why that is.
romanic
(2,841 posts)why Islam gets such a pass for being so regressive. And no, the "All Abrahamic religions are..." b.s. doesn't work with me; that's a lazy answer.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Feb 4, 2016
Ban on women entering a Starbucks store in Riyadh is latest in long line of restrictions
Women in Saudi Arabia claim to have been temporarily banned from entering a branch of Starbucks in the capital Riyadh.
A sign was placed in the window of the coffee shop saying: "Please no entry for ladies only send your driver to order thank you", after a wall designed to segregate men and women was reportedly removed during renovations.
A customer who tweeted a picture of the sign, which was written in English and Arabic, said the store "refused to serve me just because I'm a woman and asked me to send a man instead".
In a statement, the shop said: "We are working as quickly as possible as we refurbish our Jarir store, so that we may again welcome all customers in accordance with local customs."
...
Other things women cannot do in Saudi Arabia...
- Go anywhere without a chaperone
- Drive a car
- Wear clothes or make-up that "show off their beauty"
- Interact with men
- Go for a swim
- Compete freely in sports
- Try on clothes when shopping
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Especially from a painfully chauvinistic worldview.
"Those backwards cultures are fundamentally incompatible with liberal values" - said from a comfortable perch of wealth, education, and other forms of privilege which are all protected by American military might and cultural imperialism.
People who are culturally provincial and incredibly ignorant about the world's second-largest religion really should check themselves before they regurgitate ridiculous and offensive inanity about said religion. But I expect many DU'ers who read this to condemn me for being a "liberal apologist for a backwards and repressive religion."
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Telling women they're required to wear burqas when it's 120 degrees out, or that they're not allowed to drive cars, or that they can't leave their house without a chaperone IS backwards, and IS fundamentally incompatible with liberal values. Having women who have been raped thrown in prison for "adultery" IS backwards and IS incompatible with liberal values. Executing people for the crime of being gay, or for the crime of disbelieving in their skydaddy IS backwards, and incompatible with liberal values.
Not all Muslims peddle that backwards shit, but a hell of a lot of them do, with the power of government force. Let's face it. Islam needs a reformation. Badly.
If pushing feminism and LGBT rights is "cultural imperialism", then ALL GLORY TO THE EMPIRE!
Gothmog
(144,940 posts)I am Jewish and the Jewish ultra orthodox are just as crazy as the idiots cited in the OP. The Jewish ultra orthodox no more represent my faith than the nut cases cited in the OP represent Islam. I am very good friends with a number of Muslims and they disagree strongly with the sad and wrong claims made in the OP
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm sure there is but we never hear about it, probably because such a group would be in danger for their lives.
As for the Jewish orthodoxy, there have been some isolated stabbings of innocent people by them, and of course they believe they have a moral right to others' land but they are a subset, are they not, of the larger Jewish religion, and not the centerpiece, supported and encouraged by national leaders, correct?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Gothmog
(144,940 posts)Bibi's ruling coalition is based on and relies on the support of many of the fringe groups.
randome
(34,845 posts)However, it's only the ultra-orthodoxy of Islam that goes about stoning gay people and keeping women repressed. Whereas if a woman of the Jewish orthodoxy wanted to leave, she would be able to, right?
Isn't that a significant difference between the two?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There have been violent fundamentalist attacks against gays in Israel, and women have been assaulted for sitting in the same part of a city bus with Orthodox men.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as if no one in those places is against repression.
Those countries(largely due to their retention of pre-Islamic repressive social customs that also existed when those places were Christian(most of the Arab world)or Zoroastrian(Iran) or Buddhist(Afghanistan).
It's reasonable to call for those customs to be changed(neither honor killings nor FGM are called for in the Koran). It is not reasonable to fight(as the logic of the OP implicitly calls for us to do)for the abolition of Islam as a set of religious traditions. The first objective is human and decent; the second is imperialism(and, if achieved in name, could ONLY lead to a massive increase in terror attacks from those who felt forced to give up their faith by outsiders).
randome
(34,845 posts)But two things western civilization has going for it that the Muslim world does not is 1. the separation of church and state and 2. free speech.
These are not practiced to perfection by any stretch of the imagination but in general, they serve to differentiate ourselves from other cultures and they are, on balance, imo, things to celebrate and to promote.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
But that mainly means the Arab/Muslim world needs a secularizing movement that isn't tied to "The West".
It has to develop from within.
randome
(34,845 posts)And it's probably happening as we speak, just so slowly that we can't appreciate it. The Internet unites the world at the same time it encourages us to withdraw into our own comfort zones. But the genie can't be put back into the bottle. We will advance as a species, and that means putting the final nail in the coffin of the GOP, as well, another repressive culture that is slowly losing power.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Got you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But let people IN those countries take the lead and don't tie it into conquest and the discredited "clash of civilizations" thing.
Regional history since 2003 proves that Western military intervention can never achieve lead to secularism, tolerance or democracy.
Instead, try things that might actually make a difference, such as freezing all Western assets of the countries that fund ISIS(like Saudi Arabia and possibly Turkey), or pushing the Iraqi government to stop making life hard for the Sunni minority(the rise of ISIS was largely a result of how Iraqi Sunnis were treated.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Bloodshed is obviously useless
1. Develop alternative resources aggressive to replace our dependence on foreign oil.
2. Stop arming and stop protecting regimes like Saudi Arabia
3. Start treating them like the international Pariahs they deserve to be. Stop meeting their diplomats and stop cooperating with them. Lets see how long those states keep up their current line without our protection.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)historically, imagery like that is exactly the kind of thing that leaders who want wars use to create war fever.
And that you've focused on Islam as a religion rather on other factors...such as the fact that the customs you and I both denounce in the countries called "Muslim" existed before those countries were Islamic(sadly, they existed when most of the Arab world was Christian, which by itself discredits the idea, held by some, that crushing Islam as a set of religious traditions would end those customs and turn those countries into bastions of liberal tolerance).
There is cultural work for change, a cultural reformation led by people in the Arab/Muslim world, that is needed.
As to getting those countries anathemized...well, nice thought, but most of them have oil. How likely is it that we'd see politicians anywhere in "the West" taking measures that would drastically drive up gas and heating oil prices?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But the modern justification for it is based on religion, especially in the middle east.
I posted them, because I think many people sleep walk through their life thinking Islam is something besides what it is. I know people like to side with the victim and the middle east has been victimized by the west, but it does the world no good to pretend religious radicalism isn't widely supported in most Muslim countries.
But yes, like I said, invasions and arms doesn't solve cultural issues.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You clearly get it:
The issue is fundamentalism in ALL forms.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Arguing against polls with anecdotes is only acceptable evidence for someone who has a bias going in. Of course there are good and moderate Muslims, but the fact is that these positions find little support in the Muslim world as a whole. Political Islamic power representing fundamentalism is the overwhelming line of thinking in the Muslim world.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)except maybe Buddhism, Judaism and the Baha'i Faith.
So why parrot right-wing talking points by sinling out Islam? 
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)I just came across this:
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, has condemned the advance of marriage equality in the West, calling it a symptom of the apocalypse.
While giving a sermon in Red Square’s Kazan Cathedral today, Patriarch Kirill said of the growing number of countries accepting same-sex marriage around the globe: “This is a very dangerous and apocalyptic symptom… It means that people are on the path of self-destruction.”
The Russian Orthodox Church has been a key supporter of the law, and Patriarch Kirill has maintained the Church’s view that homosexuality is a sin – although he has cautioned against punishing people for their sexuality
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/21/head-of-russian-orthodox-church-warns-equal-marriage-is-a-sign-of-the-apocalypse/
Patriarch Kirill claimed he was not surprised that some Muslims are flocking to Isis' quasi-religious state as a way of escaping the “godless civilization” that celebrates events such as Gay Pride.
In an interview published on the Church’s official website, Kirill said: “[Isis] is creating a civilization that is new by comparison to the established one that is godless, secular and even radical in its secularism.”
“This is a very dangerous apocalyptic symptom, and we must do everything in our powers to ensure that sin is never sanctioned in Russia by state law, because that would mean that the nation has embarked on a path of self-destruction,“ Christian Post quoted him as saying.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/head-of-russian-orthodox-church-blames-the-rise-of-isis-on-the-godless-worlds-acceptance-of-a6818826.html
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The attempt to say 'Well Johnny does it too so it's not right to criticize anyone who does it' is bogus. Single out the bigots. Why should bigotry be defended?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just don't align with people like Cheney and Netanyahu when doing so.
That's all anybody is saying.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If I had said so about Christian political power, would you be asking me this question?
Even more so, do people still die brutally at the hands of my Islamic political power? Then what good person would be silent on the issue? This isn't about left or right, it is about human rights.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Fox and its friends have done a good enough job demonizing Islam that they hardly need our help.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is that offensive? I see that a lot here, yet never have I seen someone call that offensive.
Apparently saying anything negative about Islam, without including the disclaimer of (all religions) is offensive. Never have I seen something that be requested of posts about other religions.
So strange.
Again, you don't have an argument. All you can do is harp on about a political viewpoint being unacceptable.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)as evidenced by Kurska's support of Israel's 2014 atrocities against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, who are some of the most oppressed people in the World:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025323095
ericson00
(2,707 posts)so-called progressives give Islam special treatment other religions don't get; hatred of Israel as some kind of "legitimate" reason for Muslim dislike of America and radical Islamist attacks, as well as oppressive societies.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was never reasonable to expect the Arab/Muslim world to recognize and make peace with Israel without the occupation bwing brought to an end and the illegal West Bank settlements being removed.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)to geopolitical conflicts like the broader Muslim world re Israel/Palestinians? Where was mass global hatred for Indonesia re East Timor from Christendom? Or terror attacks against East Timor to that cause? Or such a campaign against Sudan re South Sudan?
Also, how the hell in any way is any Muslim in Malaysia or Saudi Arabia affected by Israel/Palestinian? Or Mauritania? Even if they feel a certain way about it, the intensity and focus, as well as far more monolithic opinion on it than from Jews on the issue, is just sick.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It's not surprising that supporters of blanket hatred against over a billion people on this Earth also defend war crimes.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It interrupts the flow of the meme.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)2) Is the country with the largest war budget in the world a majority Muslim country?
3) Is the country with the largest number of imprisoned citizens a majority Muslim country?
4) Is the country founded on slavery and genocide really a role model? A country were non-whites are still discriminated against?
Shall I continue? No, there is really no point in attempting to respond to such a ridiculous post, however thinly disguised as an honest attempt to discuss the issues.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)See: https://web.archive.org/web/20060808210743/http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=77392&d=5&m=8&y=2006
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/black-iraqis-face-discrimination-racism.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1900.E2.80.93present (note which countries were the last to formally abolish slavery)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Something tells me that I will wait for a long time.
Remember the cartoons in the US media that portrayed Bush as a monkey?
Remember the racist, anti-Semitic cartoons from Charlie Hebdo?
Feel free to answer my initial questions any time.
randome
(34,845 posts)Does any of that matter to women who give up their dreams because they're told to do so?
The Muslim world has had its share of atrocities throughout history. The human species is both contemptible and heroic. That passes through all cultures.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Any women in the US who have given up their dreams?
Any anti-gay bigotry?
Still waiting for the answers to my questions............
And waiting.......................
And waiting............................
randome
(34,845 posts)She can't do that in many Muslim nations. Arguing about whether or not America is perfect is a non-issue. We agree on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Witness the large number of domestic violence incidents that are reported in the US press.
What I reject, and object to, are simplistic attempts to frame Islam, or any religion, as "THE PROBLEM" when there are similar problems all over the world. If rape were a problem confined to Muslim countries, if intolerance were a problem confined to Muslim countries, if misogyny and anti-LGBTQ issues were unique to Muslim countries, that would be an issue. But sadly, as you point out, they are not.
So why then, if all of these problems are common to countries everywhere, post something like this? What motivates the poster to do this?
randome
(34,845 posts)That's the major difference between western culture and religious-oriented cultures.
Maybe a hundred years from now historians will relate how quickly the world became more united because of the Digital Age but to us, here on the 'ground', it seems to be moving at a glacial pace with hardly any progress to note.
I think progress is being made, but it's like the moving of an hour hand. You can't catch the moment when it changes, you just know that it has.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Saudi Arabia is truly a feudal kingdom. Paradise for misogynists. And many African countries have no real structure. Is that due to repeated Western interference and colonialism? Perhaps.
But ,in my view, any posts that attempt to "explain" everything through the lens of Islam or general religious intolerance are too simplistic and agenda-driven by far.
randome
(34,845 posts)I just had this same conversation with one of my daughters and she pointed out that, in effect, killing of minorities has become 'normal' in America when you look at unjustified cop killings. It may not be codified in law but is the effect the same? And your point about the prevalence of domestic violence edges into that, too. You both have a point. And I have no answers, just speculation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
On the Road
(20,783 posts)ended a century ago. And if conversion is not the goal, I don't understand what this is about.
Problem with trying to convert Muslims is that Islam provides for the individual, family, and community in ways that most nonreligious systems don't even attempt to understand or address. Probably more than any other system of thought, Islam has to change from inside. Because neither you or I have a say in it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)They are all regressive, IMO. The degree to which they are regressive is identical among the most fundamentalist of all three. I see little difference between Wahabists, Sikrikim, and Army of God other than some base religious references. All three are equally terrorist.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,236 posts)are ill-prepared to speak about them
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Do you think the polls in the OP are incorrect?
Democat
(11,617 posts)are ill-prepared to speak about them
