 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | Actually, the main point was to complicate the role of religion, while my other interests were the sheer lack of interest in the story generally, and the deviant narcogang parallel.
People continue to take expressions of religion at face value when religion is mostly post hoc rationalisation through a particular sectarian idiom that obscures many individual idiosyncrasies. Or, they take some expressions of religion at face value when it suits (x terrorists are Muslim), and ignore the religion of other terrorists (y terrorists are never identified as Christian, even if they never miss mass, do confession, give to the church coffers, cross themselves and praises god on their death bed).
Many people also don't realise that in some cultures, there is no non-religious idiom on offer, so what other idiom would a person from that culture use to express their world view? Esperanto? This would then also exaggerate the role of religion in their expression and self rationalisation, while those from pluralist societies have other modes of expression available regardless of how devout they are.
In other words, surface religiosity is a fraught measure. |
I feel like your analogy would be 100% spot on if instances of ordinary crimes by Muslims (say, sexual assaults by Middle-Eastern teenagers or king hits outside nightclubs) were being used as examples of the moral bankruptcy of Muslim faith. Actually, I have seen such claims made by fringe political figures like Cory Bernardi and Geert Wilders, and in such cases I'd be backing your analysis 100%, particularly regarding the way we tend to view Christianity as the norm and Islam as something that defines an individual. So, in a way, I feel like I totally understand your argument.
But that just makes this discussion all the more frustrating, because we're not talking about an arbitrary crime that just happened to be committed by a couple of Muslims here. Indeed, it seems completely preposterous to claim that this crime is equivalent to any other crime that just happens to have been committed by a religious person. The religious dimensions are simply too explicit.
Your argument, therefore, seems to be on the verge of denying that religion even exists as a motivational factor at all, and that just seems fundamentally incorrect to me. Is the Moral Majority in America not acting from a misguided religious belief? Did the inquisition have no religious dimensions? I mean, seriously.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:22 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
 |
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | They certainly seem to enjoy playing with their tools. |
They sure do!  |
Hey, as long as you put them back into the box of an evening no one seems to complain   |
And don't forget to clean them Mister |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | Actually, the main point was to complicate the role of religion, while my other interests were the sheer lack of interest in the story generally, and the deviant narcogang parallel.
People continue to take expressions of religion at face value when religion is mostly post hoc rationalisation through a particular sectarian idiom that obscures many individual idiosyncrasies. Or, they take some expressions of religion at face value when it suits (x terrorists are Muslim), and ignore the religion of other terrorists (y terrorists are never identified as Christian, even if they never miss mass, do confession, give to the church coffers, cross themselves and praises god on their death bed).
Many people also don't realise that in some cultures, there is no non-religious idiom on offer, so what other idiom would a person from that culture use to express their world view? Esperanto? This would then also exaggerate the role of religion in their expression and self rationalisation, while those from pluralist societies have other modes of expression available regardless of how devout they are.
In other words, surface religiosity is a fraught measure. |
I feel like your analogy would be 100% spot on if responding to instances of ordinary crimes by Muslims (say, sexual assaults by Middle-Eastern teenagers or king hits outside nightclubs were being used as examples of the moral bankruptcy of Muslim faith. Actually, I have seen such claims made by fringe political figures like Cory Bernardi and Geert Wilders, and in such cases I'd be backing your analysis 100%, particularly regarding the way we tend to view Christianity as the norm and Islam as something that defines an individual. So, in a way, I feel like I totally understand your argument.
But that just makes this discussion all the more frustrating, because we're not talking about an arbitrary crime that just happened to be committed by a couple of Muslims here. Indeed, it seems completely preposterous to claim that this crime is equivalent to any other crime that just happens to have been committed by a religious person. The religious dimensions are simply too explicit.
Your argument, therefore, seems to be on the verge of denying that religion even exists as a motivational factor at all, and that just seems fundamentally incorrect to me. Is the Moral Majority in America not acting from a misguided religious belief? Did the inquisition have no religious dimensions? I mean, seriously. |
I am saying that due to the unreliability of external religious cues, you wouldn't know the degree of alignment until you analysed each case. Murder, gang violence and terrorism happen for all kinds of reasons, and even for radically different individual reasons in the very same case.
So, I await either sufficient case history to make a reasonable assessment, or general evidence pointing in an entirely different direction than my current assumptions. These basic knowns don't suddenly evaporate under the torches of the angry mob or the hot air of journalists wanting to curry favour.
Now, if you're performing public relations, that might be a different matter, but we need to distinguish between analysing a phenomenon and managing a situation. People often confuse the two.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think you're demanding a level of analysis that, if applied to all such matters, would render discussion of nearly all social issues on this board (and, indeed, the popular media) impossible. Is that really something we should (or even can) aspire to?
In the meantime, violent, ignorant Islamophobia is growing every day, and these sorts of arguments are not going to do anything to abate it—indeed, by assuring bigots of their own correctness, rhetoric seen to be deflection or politically correct posturing will likely only inflame it further. It's more vital than ever that we fight back against this aggressive xenophobia, and that surely starts by recognising that radical Islam is a problem (and not one solved by demonising and oppressing Muslims).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I think you're demanding a level of analysis that, if applied to all such issues, would render discussion of social issues on this board (and, indeed, the popular media) impossible. Is that really something we should (or even can) aspire to? |
I'm only pushing for responsibility where people's wellbeing is obviously concerned. The discussion is great, but the irresponsible conclusions aren't. Speculative debate is normal, cathartic, creative and useful; pushing for high risk or even violent real world actions based on speculation is negligent and destructive, and can contribute to ratifying new Iraq Wars.
It's extremely hard to influence fundamentalist, splitting psychiatries, but you can probably prompt those with a bit of empathy to be careful what they wish for. Mind you, with the complete lack of accountability in journalism, or indeed monetary reward for destructive position taking, this is an awareness campaign without role models.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
