Neither of those examples are even slightly in the same category as reteaching kids away from their idiot religious views.
He would be rightly fired or censured if he attempted to do so.
"My preacher told me that Muslims worship a pedophile terrorist and are trying to take over America so they can kill Christians"
"The bible says that pi is exactly 3 but your circle uses 3.14"
purple monkey dishwasher to you to
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Let's turn it around and say that someone sends their kids to a PT and he begins every session with a prayer to Jesus and every set of situps brings a new reason that god hates F**s and fornicators.
Let's turn it around and say that someone sends their kids to a PT and he begins every session with a prayer to Jesus and every set of situps brings a new reason that god hates F**s and fornicators.
Are they good trainers?
Do my children enjoy the workout and express an interest in learning more about the persons viewpoint?
If so, more power to them.
Re purple monkey dishwater:
If a childs parents religious belief is that Muslims are terrorist can a Muslim challenge that or should they be fired?
Obviously these are questions about society so their aren't right or wrong answers. I'm just trying to learn more about your position.
On the topic of science vs islam with regards to kids in a professional environment, I'd basically just answer questions honestly. Don't try to quiz anyone about it, or even bring up the subject. But if they ask you about evolution, I'd just say what you think. Suggesting books is a very good course of action, but also only if they ask.
I personally do not believe in the idea that I need to respect the beliefs of parents 100% when it comes to what they teach their kids. If they teach their kids bullshit (which I think most religion is, but creationism most especially), that is their prerogative. But it doesn't mean that I will censor my own bullshit. Just cause its a religion doesn't, in my mind, make it somehow immoral to say something that might contradict their faith. I don't try to convert people to my beliefs on really any topic, but if someone asks I will do my best to answer honestly and accurately.
Now, you have a job to watch out for, so you obviously must tread a bit carefully.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Let's turn it around and say that someone sends their kids to a PT and he begins every session with a prayer to Jesus and every set of situps brings a new reason that god hates F**s and fornicators.
Are they good trainers?
Do my children enjoy the workout and express an interest in learning more about the persons viewpoint?
If so, more power to them.
Re purple monkey dishwater:
If a childs parents religious belief is that Muslims are terrorist can a Muslim challenge that or should they be fired?
Obviously these are questions about society so their aren't right or wrong answers. I'm just trying to learn more about your position.
I'm saying that when you're hired to do a job you do that job. It isn't your responsibility to change opinions you don't like. If I am running a company and my employees are running their mouth off and insulting or angering my customers guess who isn't gonna keep working there very long?
We wouldn't stand for a trainer telling kids that black people were carved out of wood by Satan to prepare for the final battle between Pepsi and Coke.
Let's turn it around and say that someone sends their kids to a PT and he begins every session with a prayer to Jesus and every set of situps brings a new reason that god hates F**s and fornicators.
Are they good trainers?
Do my children enjoy the workout and express an interest in learning more about the persons viewpoint?
If so, more power to them.
Re purple monkey dishwater:
If a childs parents religious belief is that Muslims are terrorist can a Muslim challenge that or should they be fired?
Obviously these are questions about society so their aren't right or wrong answers. I'm just trying to learn more about your position.
I'm saying that when you're hired to do a job you do that job. It isn't your responsibility to change opinions you don't like. If I am running a company and my employees are running their mouth off and insulting or angering my customers guess who isn't gonna keep working there very long?
We wouldn't stand for a trainer telling kids that black people were carved out of wood by Satan to prepare for the final battle between Pepsi and Coke.
Oh, ok. So the orthodox modern Corporate idea of everything that harms the company is the company's buisiness.
A reasonable position, thanks for the clarification.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Let's turn it around and say that someone sends their kids to a PT and he begins every session with a prayer to Jesus and every set of situps brings a new reason that god hates F**s and fornicators.
Are they good trainers?
Do my children enjoy the workout and express an interest in learning more about the persons viewpoint?
If so, more power to them.
Re purple monkey dishwater:
If a childs parents religious belief is that Muslims are terrorist can a Muslim challenge that or should they be fired?
Obviously these are questions about society so their aren't right or wrong answers. I'm just trying to learn more about your position.
I'm saying that when you're hired to do a job you do that job. It isn't your responsibility to change opinions you don't like. If I am running a company and my employees are running their mouth off and insulting or angering my customers guess who isn't gonna keep working there very long?
We wouldn't stand for a trainer telling kids that black people were carved out of wood by Satan to prepare for the final battle between Pepsi and Coke.
Oh, ok. So the orthodox modern Corporate idea of everything that harms the company is the company's buisiness.
A reasonable position, thanks for the clarification.
During work hours, yes.
In his off time? Whatever he wants to do is whatever, but when he's on the job he's there to get the kids fit, not undo their parent's horrible educational plans.
They live in a civilized part of the world, that'll happen naturally anyway.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Like, I don't tell the jackasses who come into my library to shove their teaparty nonsense out an airlock when I'm on duty because that's not what I'm there to do.
I appreciate all the advice I've gotten. As far as I can tell, the best responses I can have to questions about broad science are to direct them to a public library, and questions re: theology should just be handwaved away with "Let's focus on the training, guys."
Malaysia's election result dispute is still ongoing - it seems conceded that the opposition coalition won the popular vote, although the official result has the incumbent win with about 60% of seats, through smaller but more numerous rural seats.
But it seems significant that there was an abrupt reversal of positions there, with the Islamist opposition party hastily trying to liberalize its image and the incumbent coalition accusing it of secretly planning to expand Sharia law. Apparently this is a vote-loser now? When is the last time this was true of a majority Muslim state?
e: consulting some Western observer blogs, the analysis seems to be that Parti Islam Se-Malaysia has essentially collapsed as a ruralist party being 'more conservative' than the corrupt elite. Instead, today it is a predominantly urban reformist party, albeit selling the message of reform through Islam, particularly in the northeast. This leaves its coalition partners to tackle the urban populations elsewhere, through alternate secularist messaging. Hence the sudden enthusiasm for freedom of conscience: it may be more religiously conservative but it cannot wrest control of the main arms of the state religion from the state, which is dominated by traditionalist conservatives, who are suspicious of imported ideas.
I'd imagine that majority Muslim nations run into the same issue that we see in the US when it comes to law and religion. It's one thing to profess your staunch faith because ignorant, fucking morons eat that shit up, but it's another to suggest basing all the laws off of religious edicts that people have started to not follow. You also have all your citizenry that identify loosely as the dominant religion but aren't one of the hardcore types, with a stick up their ass, and don't want to follow some old ways because they think those old ways are horseshit.
AKP is as Islamist as Turkish institutions will allow, isn't it?
The AKP doesn't have control of the courts, iirc, or the military obviously, and is itself very committed to "Europeanization," so yes, they're forced somewhat to the left by institutional and external pressures I would say. Measures like the recent alcohol law are a convenient, largely cosmetic attempt to "Islamicize" themselves.
As to your initial question... actual implementation of Shari'a law has been relatively unpopular in Pakistan for some time now. People give it a lot of lip service, but either Pakistan's governing elites haven't had much patience with it from the beginning, or the Zia-ul-Haqq era of Islamization soured everyone on the whole notion. That the first and most prominent Islamist party in Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami, regularly does poorly in all but provincial elections is also probably symptomatic of the disconnect between intensely Islamist popular sentiment being diluted either by elites, wariness of the actual consequences of the implementation of Islamist policies, or both. As with other Third Rails, it's basically political suicide to suggest Shari'a law is somehow flawed... but that doesn't put any pressure on you to actually do anything with it.
As it happens, Pakistan's constitution is still the one it carried over from British India.
AKP is as Islamist as Turkish institutions will allow, isn't it?
The AKP doesn't have control of the courts, iirc, or the military obviously, and is itself very committed to "Europeanization," so yes, they're forced somewhat to the left by institutional and external pressures I would say. Measures like the recent alcohol law are a convenient, largely cosmetic attempt to "Islamicize" themselves.
As to your initial question... actual implementation of Shari'a law has been relatively unpopular in Pakistan for some time now. People give it a lot of lip service, but either Pakistan's governing elites haven't had much patience with it from the beginning, or the Zia-ul-Haqq era of Islamization soured everyone on the whole notion. That the first and most prominent Islamist party in Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami, regularly does poorly in all but provincial elections is also probably symptomatic of the disconnect between intensely Islamist popular sentiment being diluted either by elites, wariness of the actual consequences of the implementation of Islamist policies, or both. As with other Third Rails, it's basically political suicide to suggest Shari'a law is somehow flawed... but that doesn't put any pressure on you to actually do anything with it.
As it happens, Pakistan's constitution is still the one it carried over from British India.
Malaysia has wandered to the happy point where everyone earnestly insists that they believe in a multi-religious and multi-racial society under a Malay Muslim state. Shari'a for Muslims only - and in the end comprising all of the rigidity but none of the privileges, thus permanently stacking the political deck in favour of the liberals - was the bargain then and is still the bargain now.
My point is the changing thirdrailliness of it - paying lip service to the idea of extending Sharia over the atheists has abruptly collapsed in popularity, and there is open talk over the problem of apostasy - with the Islamist party now being in the curious position of being part of coalition openly arguing for more rights to apostasy (it's consistent because of a theoretical commitment to hard federalism, and the Syariah courts operate at a state level; Muslim apostasy varies from being paperwork to being criminal across Malaysia at the present already). The old-style hard Islamists are losing in both the incumbent coalition and the opposition coalition. Just a decade ago these people were trying to ban alcohol.
This is a very good piece on Talk of the Nation that addresses the increasingly sectarian tone of the Syrian civil war and its implications for sectarianism in the broader Muslim world. Bullet-points:
The formal joining of the civil war by Hezbollah has definitely ratcheted up the sectarian dimension of the conflict. It was an open secret that Hezbollah fighters were involved in the conflict basically from the start on the side of the Assad regime, but Hassan Nasrallah has now formally hitched his wagon to to the Assad family's fortunes.
There's the obvious sectarian dimension to a militant Shi'a organization like Hezbollah aligning with an Alawite (vaguely Shi'a sect) regime, but imho this has more to do with the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah regional triangle than it does with Shi'a solidarity. Religion, as ever in the region, is used to gloss over inherently political decisions.
Jabhat al-Nusra (The al-Nusra Front) has consolidated their power in certain rebel-held areas like Raqaa, and the locals protested against their very austere brand of Islam. al-Nusra are the very small al-Qaeda affiliated element in the Syrian opposition.
A prominent Sunni cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is quoted as saying that "100 million Shi'a can't beat 1.7 billion Sunnis," and using derogatory names for Shi'a. This is newsworthy according to the reporter being interviewed because he isn't viewed (at least in the MENA) as being an extremist, and could be called a "mainstream" Sunni cleric.
To throw in a disclaimer: the conflict is, imho, inherently sectarian only insofar as due to the residue of colonial rule, the Alawite minority is the one in power over a Sunni majority in something like a 90-10 split. It's not just that 'Sunni and Shi'a don't get along,' because as it turns out, the Middle East is populated by Actual Human Beings who aren't brainless automatons governed by their religion or sect. Where there is entrenched sectarian conflict, you can almost always point to underlying inherently political grievances such as a lack of ethnic representation or political disenfranchisement at the hands of the opposite sect; sect is itself almost as much a political grouping as it is a theological division, given the political nature of the origins of the sectarian split itself.
In places like Bahrain, the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, southern Lebanon, to some degree in Yemen, and in Iraq, what are often mislabeled as wholly sectarian conflicts are actually issues of governance and power-sharing.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This is a very good piece on Talk of the Nation that addresses the increasingly sectarian tone of the Syrian civil war and its implications for sectarianism in the broader Muslim world. Bullet-points:
The formal joining of the civil war by Hezbollah has definitely ratcheted up the sectarian dimension of the conflict. It was an open secret that Hezbollah fighters were involved in the conflict basically from the start on the side of the Assad regime, but Hassan Nasrallah has now formally hitched his wagon to to the Assad family's fortunes.
There's the obvious sectarian dimension to a militant Shi'a organization like Hezbollah aligning with an Alawite (vaguely Shi'a sect) regime, but imho this has more to do with the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah regional triangle than it does with Shi'a solidarity. Religion, as ever in the region, is used to gloss over inherently political decisions.
Jabhat al-Nusra (The al-Nusra Front) has consolidated their power in certain rebel-held areas like Raqaa, and the locals protested against their very austere brand of Islam. al-Nusra are the very small al-Qaeda affiliated element in the Syrian opposition.
A prominent Sunni cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is quoted as saying that "100 million Shi'a can't beat 1.7 billion Sunnis," and using derogatory names for Shi'a. This is newsworthy according to the reporter being interviewed because he isn't viewed (at least in the MENA) as being an extremist, and could be called a "mainstream" Sunni cleric.
To throw in a disclaimer: the conflict is, imho, inherently sectarian only insofar as due to the residue of colonial rule, the Alawite minority is the one in power over a Sunni majority in something like a 90-10 split. It's not just that 'Sunni and Shi'a don't get along,' because as it turns out, the Middle East is populated by Actual Human Beings who aren't brainless automatons governed by their religion or sect. Where there is entrenched sectarian conflict, you can almost always point to underlying inherently political grievances such as a lack of ethnic representation or political disenfranchisement at the hands of the opposite sect; sect is itself almost as much a political grouping as it is a theological division, given the political nature of the origins of the sectarian split itself.
In places like Bahrain, the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, southern Lebanon, to some degree in Yemen, and in Iraq, what are often mislabeled as wholly sectarian conflicts are actually issues of governance and power-sharing.
And this is why intervening can be dangerous. Because we wouldn't be dipping our toes into a fight between to actual "sides" per se. We would be jumping whole sale into a conflict where there are no "sides", just different forms of dissatisfaction and political anger that has absolutely nothing to do with us. (There is plenty of anger directed at us, but it's not the kind of "We expect you to represent us and fix it!" variety, more the "You have been fucking with us for way too long!" variety) We can't fix it, because politically, we have no cachet, no political agency here and this whole thing is all about politics. On the other hand, we pride ourselves for standing for human rights, and tens of thousands of civilians are dead. There are no good outcomes here.
And this is why intervening can be dangerous. Because we wouldn't be dipping our toes into a fight between to actual "sides" per se. We would be jumping whole sale into a conflict where there are no "sides", just different forms of dissatisfaction and political anger that has absolutely nothing to do with us. (There is plenty of anger directed at us, but it's not the kind of "We expect you to represent us and fix it!" variety, more the "You have been fucking with us for way too long!" variety) We can't fix it, because politically, we have no cachet, no political agency here and this whole thing is all about politics. On the other hand, we pride ourselves for standing for human rights, and tens of thousands of civilians are dead. There are no good outcomes here.
(We've discussed intervention in Syria vs. non-intervention at some length in the ME thread. I'm trying to keep this strictly about the sectarian dimension of it, though I think your post threads that needle well enough.)
I don't disagree with any of that. I made the most largely to counter a developing narrative of, 'Wheeelp, those brown people are killing each other over sectarian differences... again."
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'll be honest, I loat track of which thread this was. Can we pretend my post was about how a large number of religious conflicts paper over political ones instead?
I'll be honest, I loat track of which thread this was. Can we pretend my post was about how a large number of religious conflicts paper over political ones instead?
No, because that was my Thing.
Get'cher own Thing!
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Oh, i was expanding on your statement. You were talking about the region. I was speaking generally.
Muslims in Europe -- especially the UK, and especially in London -- are definitely in a different position than U.S. Muslims.
I thought that was a joke, what with "our history" tagged on there at the end. Because Europe has quite a history with Islam.
Should point out that those debates are in Oxford, and that the majority of British Muslims will probably be "Asian*"/Indian/Pakistani rather than middle eastern which would go some way to addressing why there's a difference in perception.
British Asian is the term generally used for immigrants from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc rather than those from China/Japan/Korea etc though I know it's different in the states
The US imprisoned a minority group within living memory and there are still significant numbers of Americans who agree whole heartedly with the decision.
Being openly antagonistic is not a wise move for a minority group under a microscope in the US.
Muslims in Europe -- especially the UK, and especially in London -- are definitely in a different position than U.S. Muslims.
I thought that was a joke, what with "our history" tagged on there at the end. Because Europe has quite a history with Islam.
Should point out that those debates are in Oxford, and that the majority of British Muslims will probably be "Asian*"/Indian/Pakistani rather than middle eastern which would go some way to addressing why there's a difference in perception.
British Asian is the term generally used for immigrants from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc rather than those from China/Japan/Korea etc though I know it's different in the states
I was referring to their relative demographic position in the UK and especially in the so-called "Muslim ghettos" there. To my understanding, Muslims are actually a relatively substantive and vocal community there.
Also: I would not call the video I linked "antagonistic."
Well with the privileges that The Powers That Be hold in this country (the US), "assertive" can be easily mistaken as "antagonistic" when it comes to minority groups addressing complex issues.
Honestly though I would say Europe is not that (or any) better than the US when it comes to addressing its residents that are muslim. I would say that each region has their positives and negatives when it comes to dealing with the faith/culture stemming from the faith.
Well with the privileges that The Powers That Be hold in this country (the US), "assertive" can be easily mistaken as "antagonistic" when it comes to addressing complex issues.
I think so. Anything questioning the status quo is "angry" or "bitter" or (in another time, and in more succinct terms) "uppity."
Muslims in Europe -- especially the UK, and especially in London -- are definitely in a different position than U.S. Muslims.
I thought that was a joke, what with "our history" tagged on there at the end. Because Europe has quite a history with Islam.
Should point out that those debates are in Oxford, and that the majority of British Muslims will probably be "Asian*"/Indian/Pakistani rather than middle eastern which would go some way to addressing why there's a difference in perception.
British Asian is the term generally used for immigrants from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc rather than those from China/Japan/Korea etc though I know it's different in the states
I was referring to their relative demographic position in the UK and especially in the so-called "Muslim ghettos" there. To my understanding, Muslims are actually a relatively substantive and vocal community there.
Also: I would not call the video I linked "antagonistic."
That as well, British Asians make up about 50% of the non-white minority so they're much more visible than in the states (even if not all the British Asian communities are predominantly muslim - there's enough that are that you'd probably find that it's an association a lot of people will make). Interestingly there's been a bit of attention over Channel 4's decision (one of the five major terrestial channels for those overseas - until relatively recently, unless you bought an extra box or had a Sky-type TV subscription you'd only get BBC1&2, ITV, Channel 4 and 5) to broadcast the call to prayer during Ramadan.
I'd like to talk about this video. You've probably already seen it, because it's Gone Viral™. I'd like to talk about more than just 'lol FOX News' though. Specifically, I'm much more interested in how inquiry into Christianity by a not-WASP is reflexively viewed by some as offensive or threatening -- regardless of the actual content of his findings.
I have not seen this video yet, but my god I can feel the poor dude's patient frustration of this asshat anchor. All he does is calmly explain what this book is, and every time the anchor has to steer it way to something related to "YOU'RE A MUSLIM!!!" I know i know fox news, but still.
As to your other point Ham, the reflexive reactions can probably be tied into the larger White Privilege in the US (I am not totally familiar with other predominantly areas like Europe or Australia to say that they are guilty of a similar thing, but I wouldn't say it's impossible they are as well), where a scholar, or anyone really who is a WASP-y Christian can hand down research and judgement about other faiths, and be viewed as "objective," because they come from a background that has had the privilege of traveling/colonizing/dominating the regions where these other cultures and faiths come from. Meanwhile someone who is brown/muslim/whatever rights about Christianity (or even just Jesus), and all of a sudden hell breaks loose.
A sort of similar example can be applied with published works on history. History texts (or articles) which are conducted by non-historians (which basically in this day and age means they do/have anything but a PhD in history) are sometimes virulently criticized by formal historians simply on the basis of the author's background. This kind of knee-jerk criticism should only be applied if the published work is in fact bad history, yet it happens to works done by non-historians which are in fact good history. Likewise say an historian writing a piece about economics (or economic history) and formal economists (again people who have a PhD in it) flipping their shit at the thought of a non-economist doing this kind of thing.
A personal example I have involves studying some articles in a Spanish renaissance/baroque art history class, specifically on Velazquez and his las meninas piece. First we read an article by an anthropology PhD student (who was using this work towards his dissertation), who rather than focusing on parts of the piece that everyone has talked about endlessly, focuses on the smallest details (a tray held by one of the servant dwarfs with luxury goods) and extrapolates this detail as a window into then-Imperial-Spain's colonial holdings in Latin America, and how the items can be traced to materials that were exploited by Spain, from its colonies, and developed truly "global" art markets for the rich in Europe (one example, porcelain would come from china to Spain's colonies in Latin America, natives in the colonies worked with the porcelain to develop blue porcelain items that had that far-eastern aesthetic, yet they possessed "pre-colombian" designs and motifs, which were then sent to, sold, and consumed by Europeans in Spain and beyond).
It was a really interesting piece, yet we read response articles by formal art historians, that (poorly) tore apart the article's work because it wasn't done by an art historian (TM), with flimsy technical arguments to give it the appearance that they were criticizing something other than the author's credentials. Seeing this kind of stuff really pisses me off, and I say that as someone who's more or less a card-carrying "art historian" (actually going into a grad program in the fall - master's only thankfully).
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'd like to talk about this video. You've probably already seen it, because it's Gone Viral™. I'd like to talk about more than just 'lol FOX News' though. Specifically, I'm much more interested in how inquiry into Christianity by a not-WASP is reflexively viewed by some as offensive or threatening -- regardless of the actual content of his findings.
Also pertinent is the knowledge that this anchor had interviewed a christian writer who wrote a book about Islam with no questions about impropriety being fielded.
Also the conservative media's attempt to discredit this fellow by being stupid about how academic credentials work.
I have not seen this video yet, but my god I can feel the poor dude's patient frustration of this asshat anchor. All he does is calmly explain what this book is, and every time the anchor has to steer it way to something related to "YOU'RE A MUSLIM!!!" I know i know fox news, but still.
As to your other point Ham, the reflexive reactions can probably be tied into the larger White Privilege in the US (I am not totally familiar with other predominantly areas like Europe or Australia to say that they are guilty of a similar thing, but I wouldn't say it's impossible they are as well), where a scholar, or anyone really who is a WASP-y Christian can hand down research and judgement about other faiths, and be viewed as "objective," because they come from a background that has had the privilege of traveling/colonizing/dominating the regions where these other cultures and faiths come from. Meanwhile someone who is brown/muslim/whatever rights about Christianity (or even just Jesus), and all of a sudden hell breaks loose.
...
It was a really interesting piece, yet we read response articles by formal art historians, that (poorly) tore apart the article's work because it wasn't done by an art historian (TM), with flimsy technical arguments to give it the appearance that they were criticizing something other than the author's credentials. Seeing this kind of stuff really pisses me off, and I say that as someone who's more or less a card-carrying "art historian" (actually going into a grad program in the fall - master's only thankfully).
I think the video thing is definitely a function of Privilege -- namely that anything even potentially critical about the institutions of the dominant culture are met with instant suspicion and skepticism, while things critical of say other religions or cultures are not. To be fair, this is also kind of just a function of proximity. Americans have basically daily interactions with Christianity and its adherents, and so broad generalizations about All Christians can be quickly and easily compared to actual lived experience, and either confirmed or discredited. If I were to say that Christianity permeates and guides all Americans' daily lives, that claim would be instantly contested and refuted with counter-examples.
But if I said that all Egyptians' daily lives are guided by Islam, through sheer ignorance and distance that belief might stand and actually be taken at face value by non-Egyptians.
As to the thing about credentialism... I think that definitely happens, but I don't know if it's as widespread as you may think it is. "Interdisciplinary" is basically the buzzword du jour atm in academia, just based on my own experience.
I'd like to talk about this video. You've probably already seen it, because it's Gone Viral™. I'd like to talk about more than just 'lol FOX News' though. Specifically, I'm much more interested in how inquiry into Christianity by a not-WASP is reflexively viewed by some as offensive or threatening -- regardless of the actual content of his findings.
Also pertinent is the knowledge that this anchor had interviewed a christian writer who wrote a book about Islam with no questions about impropriety being fielded.
Also the conservative media's attempt to discredit this fellow by being stupid about how academic credentials work.
I think the privilege take on this is incorrect, in so far as this isn't a christian author gets treated X way a Muslim Author gets treated differently. I see it much more as a function of the "War on Christians" bullshit Fox loves to use and reuse. Everything is an attack of Christians, a book refuting the virgin birth and offering a less supernatural explanation for the whole Crucifixion* by a Muslim no less....that's just easy pickings. Another chance to bang the persecution drum.
It mostly fell flat because he avoided actually getting involved in even discussing the merits of a Muslim *gasp* writing about Jesus, and the interviewer had no idea how to just do a quick 5 minute chat about the book because shes a fucking idiot and kept trying to get what the bosses wanted the interview to be. It's frankly amazing they even posted the video.
see this shit from the education thread over teaching EVILution in schools;
I thought the arguments against teaching evolution couldn't get dumber. Silly Hedgie:
"Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister, is one of the opponents who spoke to the board about why the standards should not be adopted, according to The Courier-Journal. “Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
Another opponent, Dena Stewart-Gore, suggested that the standards will make religious students feel ostracized. “The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, per the The Courier-Journal. “We are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.” "
Or take all the shit with Obamacare
or Don't Ask Don't Tell being ended
Or DOMA being struck down
Or gun control or anything the right doesn't like is some how an attack on their freedom to be Christians.
Everything the left does is a way to turn us into Atheists & Fascists & Communists & Socialists, and in order to do that they need to persecute the other 80% of the country that is good Christians JUST LIKE YOU. So buy your guns and your gold so that you are all prepped up when the shit hits the fan. Now a word from BuyGold.com , Gander Mountain, Smith & Wesson.
* I haven't read the book but this is what I gathered from the interview/other reading
Posts
purple monkey dishwasher to you to
Are they good trainers?
Do my children enjoy the workout and express an interest in learning more about the persons viewpoint?
If so, more power to them.
Re purple monkey dishwater:
If a childs parents religious belief is that Muslims are terrorist can a Muslim challenge that or should they be fired?
Obviously these are questions about society so their aren't right or wrong answers. I'm just trying to learn more about your position.
I personally do not believe in the idea that I need to respect the beliefs of parents 100% when it comes to what they teach their kids. If they teach their kids bullshit (which I think most religion is, but creationism most especially), that is their prerogative. But it doesn't mean that I will censor my own bullshit. Just cause its a religion doesn't, in my mind, make it somehow immoral to say something that might contradict their faith. I don't try to convert people to my beliefs on really any topic, but if someone asks I will do my best to answer honestly and accurately.
Now, you have a job to watch out for, so you obviously must tread a bit carefully.
I'm saying that when you're hired to do a job you do that job. It isn't your responsibility to change opinions you don't like. If I am running a company and my employees are running their mouth off and insulting or angering my customers guess who isn't gonna keep working there very long?
We wouldn't stand for a trainer telling kids that black people were carved out of wood by Satan to prepare for the final battle between Pepsi and Coke.
Cool, thanks. I'll add it to the OP.
A reasonable position, thanks for the clarification.
During work hours, yes.
In his off time? Whatever he wants to do is whatever, but when he's on the job he's there to get the kids fit, not undo their parent's horrible educational plans.
They live in a civilized part of the world, that'll happen naturally anyway.
Idk.
This is pretty off topic at this point I think.
But it seems significant that there was an abrupt reversal of positions there, with the Islamist opposition party hastily trying to liberalize its image and the incumbent coalition accusing it of secretly planning to expand Sharia law. Apparently this is a vote-loser now? When is the last time this was true of a majority Muslim state?
e: consulting some Western observer blogs, the analysis seems to be that Parti Islam Se-Malaysia has essentially collapsed as a ruralist party being 'more conservative' than the corrupt elite. Instead, today it is a predominantly urban reformist party, albeit selling the message of reform through Islam, particularly in the northeast. This leaves its coalition partners to tackle the urban populations elsewhere, through alternate secularist messaging. Hence the sudden enthusiasm for freedom of conscience: it may be more religiously conservative but it cannot wrest control of the main arms of the state religion from the state, which is dominated by traditionalist conservatives, who are suspicious of imported ideas.
some argument, links, etc.: http://blogs.cornell.edu/indolaysia/2013/05/16/rural-or-malay-contending-perspectives-on-ge13-1/
AKP is as Islamist as Turkish institutions will allow, isn't it?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I have no idea really
The AKP doesn't have control of the courts, iirc, or the military obviously, and is itself very committed to "Europeanization," so yes, they're forced somewhat to the left by institutional and external pressures I would say. Measures like the recent alcohol law are a convenient, largely cosmetic attempt to "Islamicize" themselves.
As to your initial question... actual implementation of Shari'a law has been relatively unpopular in Pakistan for some time now. People give it a lot of lip service, but either Pakistan's governing elites haven't had much patience with it from the beginning, or the Zia-ul-Haqq era of Islamization soured everyone on the whole notion. That the first and most prominent Islamist party in Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami, regularly does poorly in all but provincial elections is also probably symptomatic of the disconnect between intensely Islamist popular sentiment being diluted either by elites, wariness of the actual consequences of the implementation of Islamist policies, or both. As with other Third Rails, it's basically political suicide to suggest Shari'a law is somehow flawed... but that doesn't put any pressure on you to actually do anything with it.
As it happens, Pakistan's constitution is still the one it carried over from British India.
Malaysia has wandered to the happy point where everyone earnestly insists that they believe in a multi-religious and multi-racial society under a Malay Muslim state. Shari'a for Muslims only - and in the end comprising all of the rigidity but none of the privileges, thus permanently stacking the political deck in favour of the liberals - was the bargain then and is still the bargain now.
My point is the changing thirdrailliness of it - paying lip service to the idea of extending Sharia over the atheists has abruptly collapsed in popularity, and there is open talk over the problem of apostasy - with the Islamist party now being in the curious position of being part of coalition openly arguing for more rights to apostasy (it's consistent because of a theoretical commitment to hard federalism, and the Syariah courts operate at a state level; Muslim apostasy varies from being paperwork to being criminal across Malaysia at the present already). The old-style hard Islamists are losing in both the incumbent coalition and the opposition coalition. Just a decade ago these people were trying to ban alcohol.
- The formal joining of the civil war by Hezbollah has definitely ratcheted up the sectarian dimension of the conflict. It was an open secret that Hezbollah fighters were involved in the conflict basically from the start on the side of the Assad regime, but Hassan Nasrallah has now formally hitched his wagon to to the Assad family's fortunes.
- There's the obvious sectarian dimension to a militant Shi'a organization like Hezbollah aligning with an Alawite (vaguely Shi'a sect) regime, but imho this has more to do with the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah regional triangle than it does with Shi'a solidarity. Religion, as ever in the region, is used to gloss over inherently political decisions.
- Jabhat al-Nusra (The al-Nusra Front) has consolidated their power in certain rebel-held areas like Raqaa, and the locals protested against their very austere brand of Islam. al-Nusra are the very small al-Qaeda affiliated element in the Syrian opposition.
- A prominent Sunni cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is quoted as saying that "100 million Shi'a can't beat 1.7 billion Sunnis," and using derogatory names for Shi'a. This is newsworthy according to the reporter being interviewed because he isn't viewed (at least in the MENA) as being an extremist, and could be called a "mainstream" Sunni cleric.
To throw in a disclaimer: the conflict is, imho, inherently sectarian only insofar as due to the residue of colonial rule, the Alawite minority is the one in power over a Sunni majority in something like a 90-10 split. It's not just that 'Sunni and Shi'a don't get along,' because as it turns out, the Middle East is populated by Actual Human Beings who aren't brainless automatons governed by their religion or sect. Where there is entrenched sectarian conflict, you can almost always point to underlying inherently political grievances such as a lack of ethnic representation or political disenfranchisement at the hands of the opposite sect; sect is itself almost as much a political grouping as it is a theological division, given the political nature of the origins of the sectarian split itself.In places like Bahrain, the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, southern Lebanon, to some degree in Yemen, and in Iraq, what are often mislabeled as wholly sectarian conflicts are actually issues of governance and power-sharing.
And this is why intervening can be dangerous. Because we wouldn't be dipping our toes into a fight between to actual "sides" per se. We would be jumping whole sale into a conflict where there are no "sides", just different forms of dissatisfaction and political anger that has absolutely nothing to do with us. (There is plenty of anger directed at us, but it's not the kind of "We expect you to represent us and fix it!" variety, more the "You have been fucking with us for way too long!" variety) We can't fix it, because politically, we have no cachet, no political agency here and this whole thing is all about politics. On the other hand, we pride ourselves for standing for human rights, and tens of thousands of civilians are dead. There are no good outcomes here.
(We've discussed intervention in Syria vs. non-intervention at some length in the ME thread. I'm trying to keep this strictly about the sectarian dimension of it, though I think your post threads that needle well enough.)
I don't disagree with any of that. I made the most largely to counter a developing narrative of, 'Wheeelp, those brown people are killing each other over sectarian differences... again."
No, because that was my Thing.
Get'cher own Thing!
I can't see that kind of antagonistic attitude ending well for muslims if tried here.
Not with our history.
I thought that was a joke, what with "our history" tagged on there at the end. Because Europe has quite a history with Islam.
Should point out that those debates are in Oxford, and that the majority of British Muslims will probably be "Asian*"/Indian/Pakistani rather than middle eastern which would go some way to addressing why there's a difference in perception.
British Asian is the term generally used for immigrants from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc rather than those from China/Japan/Korea etc though I know it's different in the states
Because that was my point.
The US imprisoned a minority group within living memory and there are still significant numbers of Americans who agree whole heartedly with the decision.
Being openly antagonistic is not a wise move for a minority group under a microscope in the US.
I was referring to their relative demographic position in the UK and especially in the so-called "Muslim ghettos" there. To my understanding, Muslims are actually a relatively substantive and vocal community there.
Also: I would not call the video I linked "antagonistic."
Honestly though I would say Europe is not that (or any) better than the US when it comes to addressing its residents that are muslim. I would say that each region has their positives and negatives when it comes to dealing with the faith/culture stemming from the faith.
I think so. Anything questioning the status quo is "angry" or "bitter" or (in another time, and in more succinct terms) "uppity."
That as well, British Asians make up about 50% of the non-white minority so they're much more visible than in the states (even if not all the British Asian communities are predominantly muslim - there's enough that are that you'd probably find that it's an association a lot of people will make). Interestingly there's been a bit of attention over Channel 4's decision (one of the five major terrestial channels for those overseas - until relatively recently, unless you bought an extra box or had a Sky-type TV subscription you'd only get BBC1&2, ITV, Channel 4 and 5) to broadcast the call to prayer during Ramadan.
As to your other point Ham, the reflexive reactions can probably be tied into the larger White Privilege in the US (I am not totally familiar with other predominantly areas like Europe or Australia to say that they are guilty of a similar thing, but I wouldn't say it's impossible they are as well), where a scholar, or anyone really who is a WASP-y Christian can hand down research and judgement about other faiths, and be viewed as "objective," because they come from a background that has had the privilege of traveling/colonizing/dominating the regions where these other cultures and faiths come from. Meanwhile someone who is brown/muslim/whatever rights about Christianity (or even just Jesus), and all of a sudden hell breaks loose.
A sort of similar example can be applied with published works on history. History texts (or articles) which are conducted by non-historians (which basically in this day and age means they do/have anything but a PhD in history) are sometimes virulently criticized by formal historians simply on the basis of the author's background. This kind of knee-jerk criticism should only be applied if the published work is in fact bad history, yet it happens to works done by non-historians which are in fact good history. Likewise say an historian writing a piece about economics (or economic history) and formal economists (again people who have a PhD in it) flipping their shit at the thought of a non-economist doing this kind of thing.
A personal example I have involves studying some articles in a Spanish renaissance/baroque art history class, specifically on Velazquez and his las meninas piece. First we read an article by an anthropology PhD student (who was using this work towards his dissertation), who rather than focusing on parts of the piece that everyone has talked about endlessly, focuses on the smallest details (a tray held by one of the servant dwarfs with luxury goods) and extrapolates this detail as a window into then-Imperial-Spain's colonial holdings in Latin America, and how the items can be traced to materials that were exploited by Spain, from its colonies, and developed truly "global" art markets for the rich in Europe (one example, porcelain would come from china to Spain's colonies in Latin America, natives in the colonies worked with the porcelain to develop blue porcelain items that had that far-eastern aesthetic, yet they possessed "pre-colombian" designs and motifs, which were then sent to, sold, and consumed by Europeans in Spain and beyond).
It was a really interesting piece, yet we read response articles by formal art historians, that (poorly) tore apart the article's work because it wasn't done by an art historian (TM), with flimsy technical arguments to give it the appearance that they were criticizing something other than the author's credentials. Seeing this kind of stuff really pisses me off, and I say that as someone who's more or less a card-carrying "art historian" (actually going into a grad program in the fall - master's only thankfully).
Also pertinent is the knowledge that this anchor had interviewed a christian writer who wrote a book about Islam with no questions about impropriety being fielded.
Also the conservative media's attempt to discredit this fellow by being stupid about how academic credentials work.
I think the video thing is definitely a function of Privilege -- namely that anything even potentially critical about the institutions of the dominant culture are met with instant suspicion and skepticism, while things critical of say other religions or cultures are not. To be fair, this is also kind of just a function of proximity. Americans have basically daily interactions with Christianity and its adherents, and so broad generalizations about All Christians can be quickly and easily compared to actual lived experience, and either confirmed or discredited. If I were to say that Christianity permeates and guides all Americans' daily lives, that claim would be instantly contested and refuted with counter-examples.
But if I said that all Egyptians' daily lives are guided by Islam, through sheer ignorance and distance that belief might stand and actually be taken at face value by non-Egyptians.
As to the thing about credentialism... I think that definitely happens, but I don't know if it's as widespread as you may think it is. "Interdisciplinary" is basically the buzzword du jour atm in academia, just based on my own experience.
Right. Dominant culture privilege.
It mostly fell flat because he avoided actually getting involved in even discussing the merits of a Muslim *gasp* writing about Jesus, and the interviewer had no idea how to just do a quick 5 minute chat about the book because shes a fucking idiot and kept trying to get what the bosses wanted the interview to be. It's frankly amazing they even posted the video.
see this shit from the education thread over teaching EVILution in schools;
Or take all the shit with Obamacare
or Don't Ask Don't Tell being ended
Or DOMA being struck down
Or gun control or anything the right doesn't like is some how an attack on their freedom to be Christians.
Everything the left does is a way to turn us into Atheists & Fascists & Communists & Socialists, and in order to do that they need to persecute the other 80% of the country that is good Christians JUST LIKE YOU. So buy your guns and your gold so that you are all prepped up when the shit hits the fan. Now a word from BuyGold.com , Gander Mountain, Smith & Wesson.
* I haven't read the book but this is what I gathered from the interview/other reading