Political Roundtable - Part VII

[pcbothwel]

I have to point people to Sam Harris (author, philosopher, and neuroscientist). Harris believes religion as a whole is a detriment and the clock is ticking on their overall prevalence. But unlike some who believe Islam is no different than other religions (Reza Aslan), he makes the perfect arguments as to why it is different. The below video was him with Cenk Uygur (Very Liberal, pro Islam). Its a long video, but the watching from a couple minutes in to about 15-20 minutes would give you the gist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

[nuposse04]

The problem with the terrorists in muslim nations extends beyond simply the quantity of terrorists. A sizable minority of populations in some muslim nations have a positive or indifferent view of ISIS and their ilk. I think it was 8 percent of Turkey had a positive view of ISIS, 8% of like 75 million people is a large amount, and turkey is a relatively moderate muslim nation. Now some of that might be explained with the fact that Kurds and turkish have some things to resolve but still. Places like Pakistan and Indonesia have pretty substantial sympathizers as well. In Pakistan's case a lot of animosity probably developed since the afghan war and drone wars killing civilians in their population.

There are reasons why the animosity exists but there are a sizable portion of Muslims that have a wayyy too literal interpretation of Koran and Hadiths.

And with many other problems, education over multiple over multiple generations should help extinguish that... but if you're gonna start with pointing the blame anywhere, I guess blame Saudi Arabia, lotta the nutjob mullahs come outta there.

This is my point - there are small unhappy minorities in every country in the world. The unhappy minorities in Islamic states turn their unhappiness towards us for some reason. But that doesn't make Islam a violent religion, it's just one that's relatively more likely to produce anti-Western sentiment. And that's not the religion itself but the history of the region that happens to be Muslim.

I'm not a fan of religion in general, and have my quarrels with the god of abraham but Islam itself as a text when compared to the bible and torah isn't too different. The problem are the current followers, as you say, it is the history of the region that has major influence. Still though 5-10% of Muslims around the world holding hardline views of the faith is probably being generous, and of 1.6 billion people, that is a large recruiting class for terrorists to recruit from. Moderate muslims who try to be vocal in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, get imprisoned or slaughtered. If the west wants to win the war on terror, focus on empowering the moderates and calling out the muslim theocracies for their injustices and corruption.

[Zonkerbl]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

[nate33]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

My whole point is that this equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam is manifestly false. If Christianity had the same percentage of radical kooks, then we'd have a lot more religious turmoil and homegrown terrorist attacks in the name of Christianity. Furthermore, these radical Christians would drive out the moderate Christians, who would then be knocking on the doors of our neighbors for refuge. That has not happened.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You say we don't have these hardliners taking over because we have a stable democracy. I say, we have a stable democracy because we don't have a significant percentage of hardline Christian kooks and sympathizers in the first place.

As proof to the arrow of causation, I point to Europe. They used to have religious peace and stable democracy. Now that they've added Muslims, they still have a stable democracy but much less religious peace. What is the x-factor? Muslims.

[Zonkerbl]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

My whole point is that this equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam is manifestly false. If Christianity had the same percentage of radical kooks, then we'd have a lot more religious turmoil and homegrown terrorist attacks in the name of Christianity. Furthermore, these radical Christians would drive out the moderate Christians, who would then be knocking on the doors of our neighbors for refuge. That has not happened.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You say we don't have these hardliners taking over because we have a stable democracy. I say, we have a stable democracy because we don't have a significant percentage of hardline Christian kooks and sympathizers in the first place.

As proof to the arrow of causation, I point to Europe. They used to have religious peace and stable democracy. Now that they've added Muslims, they still have a stable democracy but much less religious peace. What is the x-factor? Muslims.

That's a tautology. You define religious kookism as someone who goes out and shoots people. To me a religious kook is any idiot who makes crazy stuff up and claims the Bible/Torah/Koran backs them up. By that definition we have more religious kookery in the US than anywhere else in the world.

[Severn Hoos]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

My whole point is that this equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam is manifestly false. If Christianity had the same percentage of radical kooks, then we'd have a lot more religious turmoil and homegrown terrorist attacks in the name of Christianity. Furthermore, these radical Christians would drive out the moderate Christians, who would then be knocking on the doors of our neighbors for refuge. That has not happened.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You say we don't have these hardliners taking over because we have a stable democracy. I say, we have a stable democracy because we don't have a significant percentage of hardline Christian kooks and sympathizers in the first place.

As proof to the arrow of causation, I point to Europe. They used to have religious peace and stable democracy. Now that they've added Muslims, they still have a stable democracy but much less religious peace. What is the x-factor? Muslims.

That's a tautology. You define religious kookism as someone who goes out and shoots people. To me a religious kook is any idiot who makes crazy stuff up and claims the Bible/Torah/Koran backs them up. By that definition we have more religious kookery in the US than anywhere else in the world.

Hey Zonk - care to offer any specific examples? I believe what the Bible says, which includes kooky stuff like the God who created all things entering time and space as an infant, living as a man, and dying for those who would place their trust in Him. I also believe He rose again from the dead and gives eternal life to those who call on His name. And some other kooky stuff about loving our enemies as well as our neighbors and having an objective standard of Right and Wrong that is based on God's direct statements rather than my subjective and experiential attempt to understand the world around me.

Did I make the cut?

[Zonkerbl]

Kooky stuff like "Jesus says homosexuality is a sin"

or "Darwin says I'm descended from a monkey"

Or "your teenage boys are safe spending their afternoons with the pastor"

[nate33]

Hey Zonk - care to offer any specific examples? I believe what the Bible says, which includes kooky stuff like the God who created all things entering time and space as an infant, living as a man, and dying for those who would place their trust in Him. I also believe He rose again from the dead and gives eternal life to those who call on His name. And some other kooky stuff about loving our enemies as well as our neighbors and having an objective standard of Right and Wrong that is based on God's direct statements rather than my subjective and experiential attempt to understand the world around me.

Did I make the cut?

Sev, FWIW, when I said Christian kooks, I was referring to bomb-abortion-clinics and stone-homosexuals-to-death type of kooks. People that, if they do exist, are so marginalized that nobody is worried about them.

[Zonkerbl]

Hey Zonk - care to offer any specific examples? I believe what the Bible says, which includes kooky stuff like the God who created all things entering time and space as an infant, living as a man, and dying for those who would place their trust in Him. I also believe He rose again from the dead and gives eternal life to those who call on His name. And some other kooky stuff about loving our enemies as well as our neighbors and having an objective standard of Right and Wrong that is based on God's direct statements rather than my subjective and experiential attempt to understand the world around me.

Did I make the cut?

Sev, FWIW, when I said Christian kooks, I was referring to bomb-abortion-clinics and stone-homosexuals-to-death type of kooks. People, if they do exist, are so marginalized that nobody even cares.

That's what I mean. You define kooks as people who are violent, which is a cheap way of avoiding my argument, which is that we have the same amount of kookery but we are less likely to be violent.

See, as a Russian language student I met a ton of missionaries on their way to bring the gospel to the godless atheists in the former Soviet Union. And those guys were OUT THERE, believing all sorts of crazy stuff. And instead of picking up a gun and shooting nonbelievers they pick up a suitcase and go out and try to talk people into being nice to each other.

Our kooks are different from their kooks.

[nate33]

Hey Zonk - care to offer any specific examples? I believe what the Bible says, which includes kooky stuff like the God who created all things entering time and space as an infant, living as a man, and dying for those who would place their trust in Him. I also believe He rose again from the dead and gives eternal life to those who call on His name. And some other kooky stuff about loving our enemies as well as our neighbors and having an objective standard of Right and Wrong that is based on God's direct statements rather than my subjective and experiential attempt to understand the world around me.

Did I make the cut?

Sev, FWIW, when I said Christian kooks, I was referring to bomb-abortion-clinics and stone-homosexuals-to-death type of kooks. People, if they do exist, are so marginalized that nobody even cares.

That's what I mean. You define kooks as people who are violent, which is a cheap way of avoiding my argument, which is that we have the same amount of kookery but we are less likely to be violent.

See, as a Russian language student I met a ton of missionaries on their way to bring the gospel to the godless atheists in the former Soviet Union. And those guys were OUT THERE, believing all sorts of crazy stuff. And instead of picking up a gun and shooting nonbelievers they pick up a suitcase and go out and try to talk people into being nice to each other.

Our kooks are different from their kooks.

My entire premise is to limit the potential for violence in the U.S. If you admit that Muslim kooks are more violent than Christian kooks, then my point has been made.

[dckingsfan]

I would say 5-10% of the US population has what we consider "hardline" views of Christianity. The difference is our hardliners don't stage military coups. We have a stable democracy.

My whole point is that this equivalency argument between Christianity and Islam is manifestly false. If Christianity had the same percentage of radical kooks, then we'd have a lot more religious turmoil and homegrown terrorist attacks in the name of Christianity. Furthermore, these radical Christians would drive out the moderate Christians, who would then be knocking on the doors of our neighbors for refuge. That has not happened.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You say we don't have these hardliners taking over because we have a stable democracy. I say, we have a stable democracy because we don't have a significant percentage of hardline Christian kooks and sympathizers in the first place.

As proof to the arrow of causation, I point to Europe. They used to have religious peace and stable democracy. Now that they've added Muslims, they still have a stable democracy but much less religious peace. What is the x-factor? Muslims.

That's a tautology. You define religious kookism as someone who goes out and shoots people. To me a religious kook is any idiot who makes crazy stuff up and claims the Bible/Torah/Koran backs them up. By that definition we have more religious kookery in the US than anywhere else in the world.

But it seems like (at least now), that the Muslims have a much higher rate of terrorism - which I think is Nate's point. Clearly the IRA would have been somewhat equal back in the day (Catholic and Protestant Christians). So, I think Nate's point is why take a chance.

I am not of the same opinion, but the argument holds pretty well. Especially if one would believe that we have no moral obligation for the problems in the middle east.

[Severn Hoos]

Hey Zonk - care to offer any specific examples? I believe what the Bible says, which includes kooky stuff like the God who created all things entering time and space as an infant, living as a man, and dying for those who would place their trust in Him. I also believe He rose again from the dead and gives eternal life to those who call on His name. And some other kooky stuff about loving our enemies as well as our neighbors and having an objective standard of Right and Wrong that is based on God's direct statements rather than my subjective and experiential attempt to understand the world around me.

Did I make the cut?

Sev, FWIW, when I said Christian kooks, I was referring to bomb-abortion-clinics and stone-homosexuals-to-death type of kooks. People that, if they do exist, are so marginalized that nobody is worried about them.

Thanks, nate - I understood exactly what you were saying. I also knew exactly what Zonk was saying. I was just trying to get him to come out and say it instead of just implying it.

[TheSecretWeapon]

In terms of solving our security issues, I think we're sorta back to a few basic options, none of which are all that great:

- beef up intel and interdiction operations -- try to discover and dismantle terror attacks before they can be carried out
- perform background checks on immigrants from everywhere -- as soon as we screen out "Muslims" terrorists will change tactics
- cobble together a coalition of nations to militarily defeat ISIS, disband the caliphate and drive terrorists back into caves

Although our rhetoric may be different, I'd say our stance on these issues are very much similar.

1. Obviously we should always try to improve our intelligence operations. Eventually, you bump into privacy concerns, but at the very least, we need better analysis and intra-agency sharing of existing intel.

2. I agree that we should perform more thorough background checks of all immigrants. The issue here is, to what extent are the available records trustworthy enough for analysis? Syria, and most Middle Eastern countries in general, are highly corrupt, barely functioning governments. From what I've read, it's really easy to bribe the right officials to get the right documentation. If the official documentation can't be trusted, how can they be vetted? If they can't, then we're right back to my position - that Middle Eastern Muslims shouldn't be admitted unless there are extenuating circumstances which give us very high confidence in their peaceful assimilation.

3. I'd only be in favor of this step if that coalition consisted of and was run almost exclusively by Muslim countries in the region. The U.S. could provide some intelligence and perhaps some air support, but that's about it. I don't think that's going to happen. Every attempt at training and arming Muslim allies and sending them into battle has failed. They refuse to fight the extremist ideology, which is what gives me so much concern in the first place.

Agreed on the first two. There's no such thing as a perfect solution. Any policy -- no matter what it is -- calls into existence a new strategy to get around it. Seems to me the idea is to come up with a solution to provide security while also not fundamentally changing the nature of a free and open society. There have always been people and/or groups who don't want to adhere to the social contract of living how they want to live while respecting the rights of others to live differently. In many ways, America's foreign policy has consistently failed to live up to that ideal.

As for your third point, my reading of the Islamic State's goals suggest that sooner or later the neighboring nations will be forced to deal with them. I don't have the intel to know whether it's better to do it now, or if waiting will weaken ISIS. My guess is that it would be better to handle it quickly before ISIS carries out additional attacks. My follow up guess: the nations will wait.

[Severn Hoos]

Kooky stuff like "Jesus says homosexuality is a sin"

or "Darwin says I'm descended from a monkey"

Or "your teenage boys are safe spending their afternoons with the pastor"

I don't suppose you're interested in an actual theological discussion, but in the event you are, I would simply point out that Jesus did talk a lot about sin, lust, adultery, and fornication - all of which are comprised of activities done outside the context of marriage. And he further defined marriage as between a man and a woman ("“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Matthew 19:4-6). And then you have the longstanding Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the inspiration of the Scripture, such that all of the words in the Bible are the Word of God (i.e., Jesus), not just the ones in red. So yes, Jesus says homosexuality is a sin. Although, I would refine the statement to say that Jesus calls homosexual acts and lusts as sin, not necessarily the initial attraction. But that might be getting too deep for this forum.

I understand that statement won't get me invited to many fancy dinner parties. But it is in line with historical teachings, and is not anything new, thought up by crazed right-wing Americans. I'm not asking you to like it, I'm only asking for the right to hold it.

But maybe that just makes me a kook.


[Adding a coda to be sure I am as clear as I possibly can be - Jesus spoke very harsh words against all forms of sin, and particularly sexual sins. This includes unfaithfulness to a spouse, even a wandering eye that never gets acted on in the physical sense. It also includes divorce. So this is not a case of singling out homosexuals as a unique class, we are all sinners. But acknowledging that truth does not give us the option to excuse or ignore anyone's sin. Jesus did not leave that door open. (John 8:11) ]

[Zonkerbl]

Nope, you're just a kook grasping at straws to assert something that isn't in fact the truth.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

[Severn Hoos]

Again, you are the one making absolute statements and applying labels. What exactly am I asserting that isn't the truth?

[Zonkerbl]

I'm actually not in the slightest interested in having this conversation right now. You're wrong. Figure it out yourself.

[Severn Hoos]

I trust your definitive statements related to your professional obligations are better sourced than the ones you throw out so casually on a message board, then refuse to engage other viewpoints.

[Illuminaire]

Zonk, you often seem to stand against people who act in a hateful or close-minded way. You promote the cause of the weak and defenseless, or at least seem very passionate about a number of social ills.

But reading you right now, it's like seeing a stone wall. I can't tell if you're angry, dismissive, or something else entirely - but whatever the case is, you're coming off in a very negative light here.

[dckingsfan]

This reminds me a little about what is happening in the college system right now. It doesn't seem like you are allowed to disagree with a premise. If you do, you are clearly wrong-headed and shouldn't be heeded.

Some of the great thinkers of our time aren't allowed to speak without being vilified. I think that trampling the First Amendment is a very bad thing.