The Hazards of Belief

Links234

Well I'm by no means suggesting that the only people fleeing from Islamic extremists are people with Atheist/Secular views or LGBT people, it's often other Islamic sects, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims who are often murdered for their beliefs. I find it's a huge false dichotomy being perpetuated with regards to 'the left' and their views on immigration, that if you accept any immigration, or refugees, from predominantly Muslim countries, it's the exact same thing as welcoming extremists. That is painfully reductive of left-wing views of immigration. The other thing that I find extremely problematic is the suggestion that the conservative Islamic views are something that can never change, and considering we're living in a country that was a hardline Catholic conservative state, yet we have become such a progressive society in the space of a generation, so we can personally appreciate how swiftly and drastically cultural attitudes can change. That's not to discount the very real threat hardline extremists pose, but I won't lump everyone from the same country or culture in with said extremists, no more than every Irish person can be judged on the atrocities the IRA are responsible for.

Custardpi

Links234 wrote: »

Well I'm by no means suggesting that the only people fleeing from Islamic extremists are people with Atheist/Secular views or LGBT people, it's often other Islamic sects, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims who are often murdered for their beliefs. I find it's a huge false dichotomy being perpetuated with regards to 'the left' and their views on immigration, that if you accept any immigration, or refugees, from predominantly Muslim countries, it's the exact same thing as welcoming extremists. That is painfully reductive of left-wing views of immigration. The other thing that I find extremely problematic is the suggestion that the conservative Islamic views are something that can never change, and considering we're living in a country that was a hardline Catholic conservative state, yet we have become such a progressive society in the space of a generation, so we can personally appreciate how swiftly and drastically cultural attitudes can change. That's not to discount the very real threat hardline extremists pose, but I won't lump everyone from the same country or culture in with said extremists, no more than every Irish person can be judged on the atrocities the IRA are responsible for.

I agree with much of that. However the chances for change/evolution of conservative/radical ideas may be somewhat reduced or practically eliminated by the tendency of some loud voices within the Left to scream "Islamophobia" or "racism" whenever criticism of Islam or concerns about integration or immigration levels are raised.
It should be pointed out of course that some of those most prominent in critiquing this "regressive left" tendency themselves come from a Muslim background - showing that the treatment of people as an homogenous mass whether by the condescending sandalled left or the intolerant jackbooted right is too simplistic.

Lurkio

Read that Ronan "briefcase" Mullen has almost certainly been re-elected. 'Ask not at whom the chimp smirks - he smirks at you my friend, he smirks at you'. Can't post links yet.

Links234

With respect Custardpi, I find a bit of a false dichotomy being presented there again, because a person can both criticize Islam and condemn racism. I have no problems with the criticism of religious beliefs, and Islam is a faith just like any other, just as illogical and made up as the next, and as far as I'm concerned, the people who believe in it are free to do so, but it should not be imposed on others. If I also condemn, lets say these numpties for example, that is not at odds with my previous statement. To paint it as 'the left are OK with Islamic extremists' is equally as reductive.

JPNelsforearm

Links234 wrote: »

With respect Custardpi, I find a bit of a false dichotomy being presented there again, because a person can both criticize Islam and condemn racism. I have no problems with the criticism of religious beliefs, and Islam is a faith just like any other, just as illogical and made up as the next, and as far as I'm concerned, the people who believe in it are free to do so, but it should not be imposed on others. If I also condemn, lets say these numpties for example, that is not at odds with my previous statement. To paint it as 'the left are OK with Islamic extremists' is equally as reductive.

But they are ok with Islamic extremists, look at the response to every single terrorist attack. go onto any site, Salon, the Guardian, whatever.
>Blame their host society
>Blame Western intervention
>Blame Islamophobia
>Blame economics
>Blame "right wing nazis"
>ISIS wants us to close the borders

etc etc etc

That pattern follows every single attack, mass immigration as a policy and Islam as a faith are never blamed.

Custardpi

Links234 wrote: »

With respect Custardpi, I find a bit of a false dichotomy being presented there again, because a person can both criticize Islam and condemn racism. I have no problems with the criticism of religious beliefs, and Islam is a faith just like any other, just as illogical and made up as the next, and as far as I'm concerned, the people who believe in it are free to do so, but it should not be imposed on others. If I also condemn, lets say these numpties for example, that is not at odds with my previous statement. To paint it as 'the left are OK with Islamic extremists' is equally as reductive.

If one were painting the entire left as being so that would indeed be the case. However it has to be acknowledged that there exists a tendency within that side of the political spectrum to conflate any & all criticism of Islam or concerns about immigration with racism. I'd broadly identify as left myself by the way so I'm well aware that it's not something that applies to everyone of course but it is there as can be seen by such incidents as the Charlie Hebdo killings where the victims were derided as "islamophobes" by people who one could reasonably classify as left wing.

Criticism of such views does not of course mean throwing one's lot in with the Pegida hooligans but rather it is an assertion that as I'm sure you'd agree Islam like other ideologies should be subject to robust critique & even ridicule by anyone who disagrees with it without violence entering into the equation on either side.

Pherekydes

Lurkio wrote: »

Read that Ronan "briefcase" Mullen has almost certainly been re-elected. 'Ask not at whom the chimp smirks - he smirks at you my friend, he smirks at you'. Can't post links yet.

There were, I think, 30 candidates for the NUI panel. I took great pleasure in giving Mullen #30.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But they are ok with Islamic extremists, look at the response to every single terrorist attack. go onto any site, Salon, the Guardian, whatever.
>Blame their host society
>Blame Western intervention
>Blame Islamophobia
>Blame economics
>Blame "right wing nazis"
>ISIS wants us to close the borders

etc etc etc

That pattern follows every single attack, mass immigration as a policy and Islam as a faith are never blamed.

You want people to blame 1.3 billion or so for the activities of a minority......you realise that doesn't happen because its nonsensical?

Custardpi

Lurkio wrote: »

You want people to blame 1.3 billion or so for the activities of a minority......you realise that doesn't happen because its nonsensical?

While blaming all 1.3 billion muslims is of course nonsensical as you quite rightly state would you acknowledge (without whataboutery or deflection) that the aforementioned attacks are informed by islamic ideology? The particular interpretations are not of course shared by most Muslims, however the Saudi funding of madrassas across the world amongst other factors social & political has led to a rise in extremist activity which at its sharpest end results in horrific violence. Denial of this reality helps no one, least of all Muslims themselves, who tend to be the majority victims of these literalist interpretations of scripture whether in the state sponsored Wahhabi version or the no holds barred Takfiri incarnation represented by ISIS.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

While blaming all 1.3 billion muslims is of course nonsensical as you quite rightly state would you acknowledge (without whataboutery or deflection) that the aforementioned attacks are informed by islamic ideology?

...and the IRA's campaign was informed by nationalism, therefore everyone who believes in nation-states should be condemned?

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and the IRA's campaign was informed by nationalism, therefore everyone who believes in nation-states should be condemned?

I explicitly said that that's not what should be done, are you willfully misreading what I've posted? In the case of the IRA I do indeed think that an examination of tendencies within Irish republicanism towards sectarian violence & a robust critique of such was a necessary component of finding peace in these islands. Do you believe that such a critique & reformation of nationalist ideas as they related to Ireland is the same as saying that "everyone who believes in nation states should be condemned"?

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

>Blame Western intervention

Not to dismiss your entire post's content, but I just wanted to pick up on something. Of course bloody of course people are going to blame Western intervention when ISIS was pretty much directly caused by the invasion of Iraq. Have a read of this, will you? What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters.

The US and other nations such as the UK are indeed complicit in the rise of Islamic extremism in countries they invaded and destabalized, ISIS is a monster of their own creation, recognizing this fact is by no means "being ok with Islamic extremism" it's examing the issue indepth, it's trying to understand where that extremism comes from. Saying that all Muslims are bad is a very, very easy answer that doesn't require any hard questions. But it's naive and ultimately wrong.

Custardpi

Links234 wrote: »

Not to dismiss your entire post's content, but I just wanted to pick up on something. Of course bloody of course people are going to blame Western intervention when ISIS was pretty much directly caused by the invasion of Iraq. Have a read of this, will you? What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters.

The US and other nations such as the UK are indeed complicit in the rise of Islamic extremism in countries they invaded and destabalized, ISIS is a monster of their own creation, recognizing this fact is by no means "being ok with Islamic extremism" it's examing the issue indepth, it's trying to understand where that extremism comes from. Saying that all Muslims are bad is a very, very easy answer that doesn't require any hard questions. But it's naive and ultimately wrong.

On the other hand failing to acknowledge the problems with certain tendencies within Islam & conflating criticism of such with "saying that all Muslims are bad" is just as simplistic. The West did indeed help to create the conditions in which Islamic extremism could flourish in Syria, Iraq & Libya but the ideology which informs both ISIS & Al Qaeda in those countries & elsewhere was present before Bush/Blair's folly took place.

I think there are problems on both sides of the Western political divide with analysis of Middle East politics, which often results in an unproductive dialogue of the deaf as both sides stick their fingers in their ears & shout "Islam is a religion of peace, it's all the fault of the West's imperialism!" vs "what imperialism? All we did was bring democracy, bloody Muslims!" Neither of which acknowledges the complexity of issues within the region or indeed the complexity of relations both historical & current between Christendom/modern secularising Western countries & the Islamic world.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

I explicitly said that that's not what should be done, are you willfully misreading what I've posted?

You basically said "we shouldn't blame all muslims for terrorism, but..." which follows the all-too-familiar pattern of "I'm not racist, but..."

If you want to have a rational exploration of the role of some fundamentalist sects in the propagation of violence, it's probably best not to do so in response to someone who's challenging the views of someone else who openly espouses the views you're claiming to disavow.

JPNelsforearm

Links234 wrote: »

Not to dismiss your entire post's content, but I just wanted to pick up on something. Of course bloody of course people are going to blame Western intervention when ISIS was pretty much directly caused by the invasion of Iraq. Have a read of this, will you? What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters.

The US and other nations such as the UK are indeed complicit in the rise of Islamic extremism in countries they invaded and destabalized, ISIS is a monster of their own creation, recognizing this fact is by no means "being ok with Islamic extremism" it's examing the issue indepth, it's trying to understand where that extremism comes from. Saying that all Muslims are bad is a very, very easy answer that doesn't require any hard questions. But it's naive and ultimately wrong.

I was more thinking along the lines of the Brussels attacks, you had Chomsky bringing up the Congo at one point.

I've not and will never deny US and its allied complicity in the rise of ISIS etc Libya Syria Iraq, all failed states due to western intervention, no doubt.

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

You basically said "we shouldn't blame all muslims for terrorism, but..." which follows the all-too-familiar pattern of "I'm not racist, but..."

Just to be clear here, are you accusing me of being a racist? I'd appreciate an unambiguous yes/no response if you don't mind.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

You mean accepting refugees who are under threat of being hacked to death? Like, the very subject you're talking about is LGBT rights activists being hacked to death, and it's puzzling you why Irish LGBT people might welcome people fleeing the threat of, you know, being hacked to death for their sexuality?
The only mystery here is how this is a mystery to you.

If refugees were being accepted on this basis, then they would not be bringing with them the ideologies that caused the problem in the first place.

But that is not the basis, hence the vast majority of "refugee" immigrants from such countries are sympathetic to the ideology of the perpetrators (not as extreme, but on the same wavelength) and so those kind of ideologies are taking root in Europe.

Absolam

Custardpi wrote: »

If people in Ireland generally held backward attitudes to such matters why would the government prevent people who shared such beliefs from moving to other countries? Would they not simply be proud of Irish people exporting their attitudes (assuming governments are generally representative of a population's beliefs)? In the case of Somalia that country's government is not really in a position to prevent people from leaving given the turmoil in that area in recent decades.

Sooo... the more rapists we produce the more we should encourage emigration? It's an interesting notion but I don't think other nations are going to think of us as the lovable wife beating drunks they do now for much longer if that's the way we behave....

Custardpi wrote: »

If other countries have concerns about the cultural attitudes of Irish people & society & how that would affect the integration prospects of Irish immigrants then yes they are perfectly within their rights to voice such concerns & to look at ways in which potential problems within the Irish community might be addressed.

That's true. I wonder how many are as concerned about Irish rapists activities in other countries as we seem to be about Bangladeshi/Somali rapists in other countries.

Custardpi wrote: »

As regards the "backwards foreigners" remark do you believe that all societies, cultures, religions etc are no better or worse when it comes to matters like sex, gender relations, relations with other communities etc or can one acknowledge that some societies have progressed (however imperfectly or incompletely) in their ideas, understanding & philosophies? Have the great liberal advances of the post war era essentially left us no better off than countries which have not undergone such an evolution in ideas?

I'm sure there are individuals who think there are societies, cultures religions etc who have in their opinion 'progressed' or are 'backwards' by comparison to their own criteria for the advancement of matters like sex, gender relations, relations with other communities, certainly. I'd be dubious as to just how objective those opinions are though.

Absolam

Custardpi wrote: »

My comment was in reply to what looks like whataboutery & cultural relativism in Absolam's posts. I suspect his post was essentially intended to draw an equivalence between attitudes in a far more conservative developing country community & attitudes in an Ireland which is rapidly (though not rapidly enough in my view) moving away from the religious dogma of the Catholic Church.

Actually, my intention was to draw an equivalance between rapists; we know that people who commit rapes commit rapes. Trying to extend that into an indictment of an entire society or religion is simply using it as an excuse for xenophobia.

Custardpi wrote: »

By my indicating my complete comfort with religious/cultural attitudes of Irish people being held to a high standard both at home & abroad I intend to refute his ridiculous claim that my desire to at least question whether the crime of the Somalian in this case was in part influenced by cultural/religious attitudes within Somalian society was based merely on his being a "backward foreigner".

If you're comfortable with the idea that a rapist was influenced by cultural/religious attitudes within Somalian society, then you can't pretend that an Irish rapist who commits a similar crime isn't equally influenced by cultural/religious attitudes within Irish society. Unless of course, Irish rapists 'backward ideas about sexual entitlement' do 'arise in a complete vacuum'? In which case, why can't the same occur in Somalia?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If refugees were being accepted on this basis, then they would not be bringing with them the ideologies that caused the problem in the first place.
But that is not the basis, hence the vast majority of "refugee" immigrants from such countries are sympathetic to the ideology of the perpetrators (not as extreme, but on the same wavelength) and so those kind of ideologies are taking root in Europe.

I don't think there's any factual basis for the notion that the vast majority of "refugee" immigrants from such countries are sympathetic to the ideology of the perpetrators.

I get that there's a desire to stereotype those dreadful muslims who are just 'backwards' compared to the rest of us (not their fault of course, they just need a bit of 're-education'), but really, I'd like to see some sort of factual evidence for what the vast majority of anyone believes before I start worrying about what's 'taking root in Europe'.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

While blaming all 1.3 billion muslims is of course nonsensical as you quite rightly state would you acknowledge (without whataboutery or deflection) that the aforementioned attacks are informed by islamic ideology? The particular interpretations are not of course shared by most Muslims, however the Saudi funding of madrassas across the world amongst other factors social & political has led to a rise in extremist activity which at its sharpest end results in horrific violence. Denial of this reality helps no one, least of all Muslims themselves, who tend to be the majority victims of these literalist interpretations of scripture whether in the state sponsored Wahhabi version or the no holds barred Takfiri incarnation represented by ISIS.

So......IS=Wahabi sect=Wahabis=Sunnis=all muslims=Islam's to blame?

recidite wrote:

But that is not the basis, hence the vast majority of "refugee" immigrants from such countries are sympathetic to the ideology of the perpetrators (not as extreme, but on the same wavelength) and so those kind of ideologies are taking root in Europe. .

And another one.

cowboyBuilder

volchitsa wrote: »

This degree of stupid would be no more than a joke if it wasn't for the fact that the people being murdered are the "lefty progressives" and the ones doing the killing are right wing religious types.

That fact makes this comment look like complete disrespect for the dead. Rewriting facts to make it look as though the victims are responsible for their own deaths is truly disgusting.

What ????

Cabaal

Yesterdays Liveline on RTE

A so-called "Marymobile" with an icon of the mother of God is travelling around Ireland at the moment. Listeners have different opinions about the value of the travelling icon.

http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2016-04-26&rte_mt_prg_name=test-liveline&title=Follow%20the%20Icon&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0426%2F20160426_rteradio1-liveline-followthei_c20977071_20977072_232_.mp3&r=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0426%2F20160426_rteradio1-liveline-followthei_c20977071_20977072_232_.mp3

Lurkio

Cabaal wrote: »

Yesterdays Liveline on RTE

Ring in now and talk to Holy Joe....

cowboyBuilder

Good piece in the IT
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/masturbation-is-out-contraception-is-out-why-don-t-we-ignore-the-latest-vatican-exhortation-1.2617390?__vfz=c_pages%3D11000002670848


If only the IT could be as critical of the Muslim faith as it is the RCC ..

Lurkio

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Good piece in the IT



If only the IT could be as critical of the Muslim faith as it is the RCC ..

If only a thread could go more than two or three posts without somebody going "Muslims!!!!!1"....

cowboyBuilder

Lurkio wrote: »

If only a thread could go more than two or three posts without somebody going "Muslims!!!!!1"....

It is the hazards of belief thread in fairness!!

fran17

Custardpi wrote: »

My comment was in reply to what looks like whataboutery & cultural relativism in Absolam's posts. I suspect his post was essentially intended to draw an equivalence between attitudes in a far more conservative developing country community & attitudes in an Ireland which is rapidly (though not rapidly enough in my view) moving away from the religious dogma of the Catholic Church.

By my indicating my complete comfort with religious/cultural attitudes of Irish people being held to a high standard both at home & abroad I intend to refute his ridiculous claim that my desire to at least question whether the crime of the Somalian in this case was in part influenced by cultural/religious attitudes within Somalian society was based merely on his being a "backward foreigner".

Since you ask however can I assume that as a Catholic (I'm guessing based on probability that's what you are, apologies if I'm incorrect) you fully support sex education which demystifies & deshames the act of sex, promotes gender equality & fosters an attitude of mutual respect & support within relationships, whether they be one night stands, more long term couplings, marriage (both straight & gay) etc?

A confusion over boundaries, consent, interpersonal communication as well as misunderstanding over one's own body & desires may well produce individuals who either feel entitled to violate others or lack the understanding to know when they are doing so. Religion is one of the forces which can contribute to such confusion.

Indeed, up until the 1990s (IIRC) in Ireland (a country heavily informed by Catholic morality) there was no offense of rape within marriage. Would it be outlandish to question whether this attitude of entitlement to married women's bodies extended more generally in its influence upon gender relations? Would it be equally/more outlandish to ask the extent to which such attitudes have entirely vanished from all corners of Irish society?

All very eloquently put but I'm sure Absolam is more than capable of expressing his/her own beliefs and explaining precisely what was ment without your good self making assumptions.
I have no doubt that religious attitudes in Islamic countries regarding sexual abuse of women differ greatly to Ireland.Somalia or wherever you wish to highlight.However in the context of an individual growing up under Irish cultural norms ,as you stated,what religious attitudes exist today that brings you to conclude that it plays a role in the creation of a rapist?You made a tenuous link in relation to a nations legal position 20+ years ago and the nation being a Catholic country but I really think your over egging it purely,as this whole thread is,as a stick to further bash Christianity.
Yes I'm fully supportive of sex education,gender equality and I always fully respect anyone who reciprocates.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

Just to be clear here, are you accusing me of being a racist? I'd appreciate an unambiguous yes/no response if you don't mind.

No.

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

You mean accepting refugees who are under threat of being hacked to death? Like, the very subject you're talking about is LGBT rights activists being hacked to death, and it's puzzling you why Irish LGBT people might welcome people fleeing the threat of, you know, being hacked to death for their sexuality?

The only mystery here is how this is a mystery to you.

Really,any idea what percentage of refugees are lgbt?Last year Germany received 95 reports of assaults regarding lgbt refugees,this coming from an influx of over 1 million.While any abuse is regrettable I don't feel the statistics can justify the open door policy your advocating.The transgender women who were nearly stoned to death by refugees in Dortmund anyone?