Iran ought to have to answer for that shit. Why is there no international accountability for countries that pull stunts like this? The people who are in charge of that cable station should be charged with manslaughter for every death that occurs as a result of their broadcast.
Those people chose to have a riot. Yes, Iran shares some responsibility, but it's fundamentally the people who do violence who are to blame here.
That's kind of like sicking an angry dog on a child and saying that it was the dog's choice to attack. And it was. But the instigators are clearly guilty of fanning the flames. They knew what would happen. That's why they did it. Off with their goddamn heads.
I don't see that situation as being analogous at all. People aren't dogs, people aren't as simple as dogs, and people can and should be held to higher standards than dogs.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
Freedom House does not consider Zimbabwe or Congo to be "free", nor even "partly free". Why are you attempting to use them as a rebuttal.
Research is your friend, friend.
Then how about this - an organization staffed by neocons will be suspect when it comes to discussing the Middle East.
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
Freedom House does not consider Zimbabwe or Congo to be "free", nor even "partly free". Why are you attempting to use them as a rebuttal.
Research is your friend, friend.
Then how about this - an organization staffed by neocons will be suspect when it comes to discussing the Middle East.
I guess that depends on the extent to which ideologues have influence in the organization. Fortunately, what Freedom House says in regards to the countries being discussed is right there, and is ripe for discussion.
None of this is relevant to DarkCrawler attempting to use Zimbabwe and the Congo as a rebuttal to Modern Man's point though.
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
Freedom House does not consider Zimbabwe or Congo to be "free", nor even "partly free". Why are you attempting to use them as a rebuttal.
Research is your friend, friend.
Central African Republic, then, or Laurent Gbagbo. It was just namedropping, though I admit that it was false to use them in that context. If anyone wants me to make an essay comparing the good sides and bad sides of the rulers of Christian Africa as compared to the rulers of Muslim countries, it's not really that hard to make an argument that the latter are better for their people.
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
The question I guess, ultimately, if you took the religion out of all these examples of people burning shit and kill people over books, would they still act this way? Can you demonstrate where, in a modern country, someone burning the bible would resort to mass riots and dead people? I don't know, maybe. But it's happening with the Qur'an so at least that crazy subset of their religion is... partially anyways, a bit more crazy than the crazies of Christianity.
Of course this is all a thought exercise for the time being until someone burns a bible over in Arabic countries.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
There are very religious countries that are quite secure and free.
The question I guess, ultimately, if you took the religion out of all these examples of people burning shit and kill people over books, would they still act this way?
If you're asking whether people can behave like this without religion, I don't see how you could say no. I may be misreading you though.
Can you demonstrate where, in a modern country, someone burning the bible would resort to mass riots and dead people? I don't know, maybe. But it's happening with the Qur'an so at least that crazy subset of their religion is... partially anyways, a bit more crazy than the crazies of Christianity.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
The books were burned. Both at the site of the attacks and by a couple of assholes in Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that.
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
There are very religious countries that are quite secure and free.
How many?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
The books were burned. Both at the site of the attacks and by a couple of assholes in Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that.
Just not by that guy in Florida.
So. Some people rioted and killed people because some hicks burned a book? So if they burned a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh instead, they'd riot as well, is what you're saying?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
There are very religious countries that are quite secure and free.
How many?
Perhaps we would do well do define the terms for what makes a country religious.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
So none of them actually care about the Koran being burned?
Ultimately, the problem with MMs conclusion is it takes correlation as causation as he can't find a mechanism to describe the relationship beyond "Islam Bad". He also ignores all sorts of other possible causes and cherry picks his examples.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
There are very religious countries that are quite secure and free.
How many?
Perhaps we would do well do define the terms for what makes a country religious.
Go ahead. I never made any stipulations about any countries right there. I'd imagine MM was talking about the region as a whole though, so not sure how that's easily broken down for discussion.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
So none of them actually care about the Koran being burned?
Of course they do thats not the point. The point was this burning set off grievances that are already there.
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.
I recall you dismissing the NBEfuckingR as biased because Friedman and Mises were among its members.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
The books were burned. Both at the site of the attacks and by a couple of assholes in Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that.
Just not by that guy in Florida.
So that guy in New York who burned half a Koran before police walked him out was retaliating because Muslim protesters burned our flag. Would he have burned the Koran if the protesters didn't pee on our flag? Would the protesters pee on our flag if Dove church hadn't threatened to burn hundreds of Korans? Would Dove church have threatened to burn the Korans if Muslim terrorists hadn't destroyed the WTC in the name of Islam?
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
So none of them actually care about the Koran being burned?
Of course they do thats not the point. The point was this burning set off grievances that are already there.
So... Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
The books were burned. Both at the site of the attacks and by a couple of assholes in Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that.
Just not by that guy in Florida.
So. Some people rioted and killed people because some hicks burned a book? So if they burned a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh instead, they'd riot as well, is what you're saying?
No. My point was that the books weren't "supposedly" burned. They were burned.
Again though, that assumes that because the religion in question is islam islam is the cause of the violence. The cause is a shitty country where people die for no god damn reason and everyone is poor, religion is just the cover.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
So none of them actually care about the Koran being burned?
Of course they do thats not the point. The point was this burning set off grievances that are already there.
So... Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
Fundamentalism exists in safe, non-impoverished countries though. For that matter, violent protests exist in non-impoverished, safe countries. Just ask the G8 or WTO. Hell, religious violence exists in America, just ask some of the Muslims who are the target of anti-Muslim violence in America.
The thing is, if there hadn't been a book burning, if there hadn't been people being worked up over the possibility of a book being burned, there wouldn't have been protests and there wouldn't have been riots. At the same time, had people not cared about a book being burned, there wouldn't have been protests or riots.
Maybe there would have been riots about something else. It's not like people need excuses to have anti-America rallies, right? Is there something preventing people from saying how much they hate various aspects of America already? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is.
There is, however, a series of claims made by Muslims about how pissed they are about people burning their books. I don't think these claims should be ignored, and I don't see a compelling reason to take them for anything other than what they claim to be. There's something about religion that makes us not believe that people are sincere in what they say they believe. I don't think it's such a stretch that people actually care about what they themselves claim to care about.
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.
I recall you dismissing the NBEfuckingR as biased because Friedman and Mises were among its members.
You'll pardon me if I have little use for those who abet tyrants.
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
Massively specious reasoning. [WARNING: GODWIN'S LAW INCOMING] "Oskar Schindler, a Nazi Party member, acted to save some Jews. Therefore it can't be something inherent in Nazi Party ideology which was anti-Semetic."
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Evidence. Most reasonable people would agree that a multitude of factors contribute to extremist / fundamentalist mentalities. You simply seem to be denying that "religion" is a cause, and substituting "poverty". It is the same argument, but with a different word.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
Proof please. Cite some situation where religion has been magically removed and has demonstrated that extremism still existed.
If you are going to try to use quasi-logical / scientific reasoning or language, be better at it.
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.
I recall you dismissing the NBEfuckingR as biased because Friedman and Mises were among its members.
You'll pardon me if I have little use for those who abet tyrants.
You're missing the point. Deliberately, or would you like me to explain?
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.
I recall you dismissing the NBEfuckingR as biased because Friedman and Mises were among its members.
You'll pardon me if I have little use for those who abet tyrants.
Better for tyrants to have good ideas than for them to have bad ideas.
Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
1) Fundamentalism exists in safe, non-impoverished countries though. For that matter, violent protests exist in non-impoverished, safe countries. Just ask the G8 or WTO. Hell, religious violence exists in America, just ask some of the Muslims who are the target of anti-Muslim violence in America.
2) Maybe there would have been riots about something else. It's not like people need excuses to have anti-America rallies, right? Is there something preventing people from saying how much they hate various aspects of America already? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is.
There is, however, a series of claims made by Muslims about how pissed they are about people burning their books. I don't think these claims should be ignored, and I don't see a compelling reason to take them for anything other than what they claim to be. There's something about religion that makes us not believe that people are sincere in what they say they believe. I don't think it's such a stretch that people actually care about what they themselves claim to care about.
Ok here goes, numbering your paragraphs for easy response.
1) Those things are nominally outliers though. Day to day violence like that is hardly found in rich nations
2) No there isn't, but thats not how mobs work. They don't wake up and say "well today we're going to riot" They go more like "omg Americans are burning Korans, and hey we hate those guys lets go riot". You have to have some sort of spark for a riot generally.
Now for of the other responses:
Sammich, weren't the most recent Muslim terrorists in America (the underwear bomber, Times Square car bomb) middle-class or better?
This is true, they were. Terrorists are recruiting educated individuals as they can for two reasons, first they're obviously smarter, but secondly they are more likely (or at least were more likely) to go unnoticed since they didn't fit a stereotype. They're also not that hard to radicalize because they're more likely to be politically knowledgeable.
I didn't mean that these people necessarily need to be fueled by their own hunger or poverty, sorry if it came out that way.
Massively specious reasoning. [WARNING: GODWIN'S LAW INCOMING] "Oskar Schindler, a Nazi Party member, acted to save some Jews. Therefore it can't be something inherent in Nazi Party ideology which was anti-Semetic."
Don't use analogies, it just derails things. Its hard to argue that Islam itself is the fuel when there are large and peaceful Muslims communities around the world. There has to be something else in the mix.
Evidence. Most reasonable people would agree that a multitude of factors contribute to extremist / fundamentalist mentalities. You simply seem to be denying that "religion" is a cause, and substituting "poverty". It is the same argument, but with a different word.
Not going to dig out links right now, but this statement can be addressed mostly via my above response. Religion does have a small part in that it acts as something of an ideological lubricant, giving terrorists something to rally around, but it doesn't have to be there and it doesn't have to be religion.
Proof please. Cite some situation where religion has been magically removed and has demonstrated that extremism still existed.
I can cite instances of extremism that had nothing to do with religion, I may have worded my statement poorly.
The reason for the middle east being undemocratic has less to do with the Religion of Islam and more to do with the fact that it has oil. Without oil money and the subsequent American support, most kingdoms in the middle east wouldn't last a week. They would be republics in no time. Maybe not democratic, but no longer absolute monarchies.
I mean seriously? We are even fucking debating this fact? Even the outliers like Egypt and Syria are affected by the strategic importance of middle east Oil.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
1) Fundamentalism exists in safe, non-impoverished countries though. For that matter, violent protests exist in non-impoverished, safe countries. Just ask the G8 or WTO. Hell, religious violence exists in America, just ask some of the Muslims who are the target of anti-Muslim violence in America.
2) Maybe there would have been riots about something else. It's not like people need excuses to have anti-America rallies, right? Is there something preventing people from saying how much they hate various aspects of America already? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is.
There is, however, a series of claims made by Muslims about how pissed they are about people burning their books. I don't think these claims should be ignored, and I don't see a compelling reason to take them for anything other than what they claim to be. There's something about religion that makes us not believe that people are sincere in what they say they believe. I don't think it's such a stretch that people actually care about what they themselves claim to care about.
Ok here goes, numbering your paragraphs for easy response.
1) Those things are nominally outliers though. Day to day violence like that is hardly found in rich nations
2) No there isn't, but thats not how mobs work. They don't wake up and say "well today we're going to riot" They go more like "omg Americans are burning Korans, and hey we hate those guys lets go riot". You have to have some sort of spark for a riot generally.
I think that in countries with poor institutions and a relatively poor populace, you're going to get a lot more hurt feelings being translated into violence. In countries with governments that are extremely sympathetic to religion or have an interest in promoting religious differences, you're probably going to see the same.
In the former case, the weakness of government and the relative poverty serve only as enablers. There doesn't need to be some other "real" issue that people are concerned about in either of the situations that I list.
I guess... Well, here's how I view what you are saying. You seem to feel that religion can't be a "real" thing to people, that it can't possibly be the cause of violence, or that the occasions where it is are extremely rare such that it can be generally safely assumed to be inconsequential.
If this is not your view, please show me how I am misunderstanding you.
If this is reasonably accurate, feel free to tweak my understanding to be more accurate, but it seems like there is a big assumption, or many big assumptions, being made about the impact of peoples' beliefs on their actions, and their interpretation of world events.
For example, to me, burning a Koran is no big deal. If I thought it was the Word of God though, and I thought that God cares very much about the structural integrity of books containing his Words, I think I would be genuinely outraged on his behalf and I would make a big fuss about it. I can't empathize with this view as it's of a mindset that is very foreign to my own, but I have an--I believe--intellectual understanding of the kinds of things that might go into this. I believe that you do nto have this understanding, if I have interpreted you correctly.
Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
1) Fundamentalism exists in safe, non-impoverished countries though. For that matter, violent protests exist in non-impoverished, safe countries. Just ask the G8 or WTO. Hell, religious violence exists in America, just ask some of the Muslims who are the target of anti-Muslim violence in America.
2) Maybe there would have been riots about something else. It's not like people need excuses to have anti-America rallies, right? Is there something preventing people from saying how much they hate various aspects of America already? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is.
There is, however, a series of claims made by Muslims about how pissed they are about people burning their books. I don't think these claims should be ignored, and I don't see a compelling reason to take them for anything other than what they claim to be. There's something about religion that makes us not believe that people are sincere in what they say they believe. I don't think it's such a stretch that people actually care about what they themselves claim to care about.
Ok here goes, numbering your paragraphs for easy response.
1) Those things are nominally outliers though. Day to day violence like that is hardly found in rich nations
2) No there isn't, but thats not how mobs work. They don't wake up and say "well today we're going to riot" They go more like "omg Americans are burning Korans, and hey we hate those guys lets go riot". You have to have some sort of spark for a riot generally.
I guess... Well, here's how I view what you are saying. You seem to feel that religion can't be a "real" thing to people, that it can't possibly be the cause of violence, or that the occasions where it is are extremely rare such that it can be generally safely assumed to be inconsequential.
If this is not your view, please show me how I am misunderstanding you.
I'll restate my claim. Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
What will drive people to violence is when their cousin's wedding party is mistaken for a terrorist meeting and bombed, or when they see how poor and destitute their countries are and blame it on western powers. Religion just makes them feel more just.
So you can remove the religion but it won't stop the radicalization and violence because it doesn't address the core problems.
Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
I need to have some kind of reason for this limitation. People feel compelled to do all kinds of things because of religion. If people believe the world works a certain way, I don't see why they wouldn't act on those beliefs.
Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
I need to have some kind of reason for this limitation. People feel compelled to do all kinds of things because of religion. If people believe the world works a certain way, I don't see why they wouldn't act on those beliefs.
It's more that "sole cause" is a nonsense concept when dealing with a human being.
Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
I need to have some kind of reason for this limitation. People feel compelled to do all kinds of things because of religion. If people believe the world works a certain way, I don't see why they wouldn't act on those beliefs.
People believe all sorts of things they don't act on. People who view abortion as murder don't necessarily go out and try to capture abortion doctors, though its the logical conclusion of the belief.
My argument is about scale. You simply can't get enough people to throw their lives into and probably away for abstract notions of god and spirituality (even if they honestly believe in those things), but very real and immediate conditions like poverty and violence work great. Sure every so often you'll have a handful of people who are going to need nothing more than religion to take these actions, and they're often going to be the leadership, but like I said, the grunts are motivated by the nephew who died in a missile strike.
Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
I need to have some kind of reason for this limitation. People feel compelled to do all kinds of things because of religion. If people believe the world works a certain way, I don't see why they wouldn't act on those beliefs.
It's more that "sole cause" is a nonsense concept when dealing with a human being.
This is a boring and largely useless distinction as it applies to everything. We have few if any qualms about attributing one or a few major factors as the cause of things, why is religion special here?
People believe all sorts of things they don't act on. People who view abortion as murder don't necessarily go out and try to capture abortion doctors, though its the logical conclusion of the belief.
My argument is about scale. You simply can't get enough people to throw their lives into and probably away for abstract notions of god and spirituality (even if they honestly believe in those things), but very real and immediate conditions like poverty and violence work great. Sure every so often you'll have a handful of people who are going to need nothing more than religion to take these actions, and they're often going to be the leadership, but like I said, the grunts are motivated by the nephew who died in a missile strike.
I know what you're saying, but you're not providing reasons. I need to see some sentences that involve "because", otherwise it's just a lot of assertions that have no bases.
Posts
I don't see that situation as being analogous at all. People aren't dogs, people aren't as simple as dogs, and people can and should be held to higher standards than dogs.
People, not necessarily.
This is a valid point, mob dynamics are completely different than individuals.
I guess that depends on the extent to which ideologues have influence in the organization. Fortunately, what Freedom House says in regards to the countries being discussed is right there, and is ripe for discussion.
None of this is relevant to DarkCrawler attempting to use Zimbabwe and the Congo as a rebuttal to Modern Man's point though.
Central African Republic, then, or Laurent Gbagbo. It was just namedropping, though I admit that it was false to use them in that context. If anyone wants me to make an essay comparing the good sides and bad sides of the rulers of Christian Africa as compared to the rulers of Muslim countries, it's not really that hard to make an argument that the latter are better for their people.
Well because ultimately the problem is "religion bad" and Islam is just a part of that larger demographic. He isn't trying to say "Christians are good" and "Muslims are bad" he's just saying "It's bad."
The question I guess, ultimately, if you took the religion out of all these examples of people burning shit and kill people over books, would they still act this way? Can you demonstrate where, in a modern country, someone burning the bible would resort to mass riots and dead people? I don't know, maybe. But it's happening with the Qur'an so at least that crazy subset of their religion is... partially anyways, a bit more crazy than the crazies of Christianity.
Of course this is all a thought exercise for the time being until someone burns a bible over in Arabic countries.
What is the real reason people are rioting over a book being supposedly burned then?
The books were burned. Both at the site of the attacks and by a couple of assholes in Kentucky or Tennessee or somewhere like that.
Just not by that guy in Florida.
How many?
Standard America hate, plus a healthy dose of "The west is unfair to us". The book burning just set off what was already there.
So. Some people rioted and killed people because some hicks burned a book? So if they burned a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh instead, they'd riot as well, is what you're saying?
Perhaps we would do well do define the terms for what makes a country religious.
So none of them actually care about the Koran being burned?
Go ahead. I never made any stipulations about any countries right there. I'd imagine MM was talking about the region as a whole though, so not sure how that's easily broken down for discussion.
Of course they do thats not the point. The point was this burning set off grievances that are already there.
I recall you dismissing the NBEfuckingR as biased because Friedman and Mises were among its members.
So that guy in New York who burned half a Koran before police walked him out was retaliating because Muslim protesters burned our flag. Would he have burned the Koran if the protesters didn't pee on our flag? Would the protesters pee on our flag if Dove church hadn't threatened to burn hundreds of Korans? Would Dove church have threatened to burn the Korans if Muslim terrorists hadn't destroyed the WTC in the name of Islam?
etc etc into infinity.
So... Why ignore the stuff that they say they care about and that you yourself believe they care about? Why is the set of grievances not the cover and the religion the actual motivator? I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that something is just a "cover" and the substance of what people believe about holiness and magic and words of god can be safely ignored?
No. My point was that the books weren't "supposedly" burned. They were burned.
I come to the conclusion of what is a the source of the problem based on what is setting the stage. We had Muslims in America who did not engage in violent protests, therefor it can't be something inherent in religion that's making it happen.
If you ensure some degree of safety, and remove the poverty, the fundamentalism, and with it the violence, will go away.
Removing religion won't do anything to get rid of extremism and therefor I can't conclude it is the source of the violence.
Fundamentalism exists in safe, non-impoverished countries though. For that matter, violent protests exist in non-impoverished, safe countries. Just ask the G8 or WTO. Hell, religious violence exists in America, just ask some of the Muslims who are the target of anti-Muslim violence in America.
The thing is, if there hadn't been a book burning, if there hadn't been people being worked up over the possibility of a book being burned, there wouldn't have been protests and there wouldn't have been riots. At the same time, had people not cared about a book being burned, there wouldn't have been protests or riots.
Maybe there would have been riots about something else. It's not like people need excuses to have anti-America rallies, right? Is there something preventing people from saying how much they hate various aspects of America already? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is.
There is, however, a series of claims made by Muslims about how pissed they are about people burning their books. I don't think these claims should be ignored, and I don't see a compelling reason to take them for anything other than what they claim to be. There's something about religion that makes us not believe that people are sincere in what they say they believe. I don't think it's such a stretch that people actually care about what they themselves claim to care about.
Let's keep this in the realm of protesters and rioters rather than individual nuts.
You'll pardon me if I have little use for those who abet tyrants.
Fine, these violent protesters don't look poor or hungry. If you look at 2:25, I think he's wearing a Swiss Army watch.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=16554941&postcount=1693
Massively specious reasoning. [WARNING: GODWIN'S LAW INCOMING] "Oskar Schindler, a Nazi Party member, acted to save some Jews. Therefore it can't be something inherent in Nazi Party ideology which was anti-Semetic."
Evidence. Most reasonable people would agree that a multitude of factors contribute to extremist / fundamentalist mentalities. You simply seem to be denying that "religion" is a cause, and substituting "poverty". It is the same argument, but with a different word.
Proof please. Cite some situation where religion has been magically removed and has demonstrated that extremism still existed.
If you are going to try to use quasi-logical / scientific reasoning or language, be better at it.
You're missing the point. Deliberately, or would you like me to explain?
Better for tyrants to have good ideas than for them to have bad ideas.
Ok here goes, numbering your paragraphs for easy response.
1) Those things are nominally outliers though. Day to day violence like that is hardly found in rich nations
2) No there isn't, but thats not how mobs work. They don't wake up and say "well today we're going to riot" They go more like "omg Americans are burning Korans, and hey we hate those guys lets go riot". You have to have some sort of spark for a riot generally.
Now for of the other responses:
This is true, they were. Terrorists are recruiting educated individuals as they can for two reasons, first they're obviously smarter, but secondly they are more likely (or at least were more likely) to go unnoticed since they didn't fit a stereotype. They're also not that hard to radicalize because they're more likely to be politically knowledgeable.
I didn't mean that these people necessarily need to be fueled by their own hunger or poverty, sorry if it came out that way.
Don't use analogies, it just derails things. Its hard to argue that Islam itself is the fuel when there are large and peaceful Muslims communities around the world. There has to be something else in the mix.
Not going to dig out links right now, but this statement can be addressed mostly via my above response. Religion does have a small part in that it acts as something of an ideological lubricant, giving terrorists something to rally around, but it doesn't have to be there and it doesn't have to be religion.
I can cite instances of extremism that had nothing to do with religion, I may have worded my statement poorly.
Sorry for the delayed response.
I mean seriously? We are even fucking debating this fact? Even the outliers like Egypt and Syria are affected by the strategic importance of middle east Oil.
I think that in countries with poor institutions and a relatively poor populace, you're going to get a lot more hurt feelings being translated into violence. In countries with governments that are extremely sympathetic to religion or have an interest in promoting religious differences, you're probably going to see the same.
In the former case, the weakness of government and the relative poverty serve only as enablers. There doesn't need to be some other "real" issue that people are concerned about in either of the situations that I list.
I guess... Well, here's how I view what you are saying. You seem to feel that religion can't be a "real" thing to people, that it can't possibly be the cause of violence, or that the occasions where it is are extremely rare such that it can be generally safely assumed to be inconsequential.
If this is not your view, please show me how I am misunderstanding you.
If this is reasonably accurate, feel free to tweak my understanding to be more accurate, but it seems like there is a big assumption, or many big assumptions, being made about the impact of peoples' beliefs on their actions, and their interpretation of world events.
For example, to me, burning a Koran is no big deal. If I thought it was the Word of God though, and I thought that God cares very much about the structural integrity of books containing his Words, I think I would be genuinely outraged on his behalf and I would make a big fuss about it. I can't empathize with this view as it's of a mindset that is very foreign to my own, but I have an--I believe--intellectual understanding of the kinds of things that might go into this. I believe that you do nto have this understanding, if I have interpreted you correctly.
I'll restate my claim. Religion cannot be the sole cause of large scale violence and unrest on the magnitude of we see in radical Islam today. It can be part of it in that it is twisted to suite the ideological needs of the involved parties (wahabism), but on its own you simply can't use religion to radicalize enough people and drive them to violence.
What will drive people to violence is when their cousin's wedding party is mistaken for a terrorist meeting and bombed, or when they see how poor and destitute their countries are and blame it on western powers. Religion just makes them feel more just.
So you can remove the religion but it won't stop the radicalization and violence because it doesn't address the core problems.
I need to have some kind of reason for this limitation. People feel compelled to do all kinds of things because of religion. If people believe the world works a certain way, I don't see why they wouldn't act on those beliefs.
It's more that "sole cause" is a nonsense concept when dealing with a human being.
People believe all sorts of things they don't act on. People who view abortion as murder don't necessarily go out and try to capture abortion doctors, though its the logical conclusion of the belief.
My argument is about scale. You simply can't get enough people to throw their lives into and probably away for abstract notions of god and spirituality (even if they honestly believe in those things), but very real and immediate conditions like poverty and violence work great. Sure every so often you'll have a handful of people who are going to need nothing more than religion to take these actions, and they're often going to be the leadership, but like I said, the grunts are motivated by the nephew who died in a missile strike.
This is a boring and largely useless distinction as it applies to everything. We have few if any qualms about attributing one or a few major factors as the cause of things, why is religion special here?
I know what you're saying, but you're not providing reasons. I need to see some sentences that involve "because", otherwise it's just a lot of assertions that have no bases.