Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Breaking news: Mumbai attacked

13»

Posts

  • BogartBogart I Will Cure You Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    Would the BBC count, or would they discount it as European socialist propaganda?

    Bogart on
  • frank as fuckfrank as fuck __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    It's possible. Linked it.

    Just for kicks, here's the OP from the thread I'm talking about:
    Looks like the leftist dhimmitude and political correctness that infected the British media and politics towards the came back to haunt the Brits: now their own home grown jihadis - radicalized in mosques built right in the heart of England are murdering hundreds of innocents in cowardly attacks abroad.
    Are you proud of this,you liberal multiculturalist wimps?

    frank as fuck on
  • BogartBogart I Will Cure You Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    Hahaha.

    There have actually been problems with nutter clerics here and the cultural isolation of some muslim communities, but many of the worst psycho imams have been kicked out or banned from entering the country now and besides, that guy is on crazy juice.

    Bogart on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Some of the hyperconservaties at another forum I frequent are talking about how the British people/government are to blame for this by allowing for "liberal multiculturalism" to dominate their government and giving terrorists a place to live and operate.

    Srsly.

    Stop hanging out with Freepers. They aren't conservatives, they're just crazy. And that was really the best they can come up with to blame the British for this? I mean sure, much of it pre-dates the India as a colony but they couldn't use the arbitrary dividing of countries and states within the country? At least they would have picked something to blame the Brits for that would have actually been a contributing cause....

    Thomamelas on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Yall wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I think, from the little I know of the situation in India, that it's important to avoid discussing these attacks in a vacuum.

    In 2002, Hindu mobs attacked and killed from 1,000 to 2,000 (largely defenseless) Muslims in the province of Gujarat. (Linku)

    This was itself retaliation for an earlier train station attack by Muslims in which about 60 Hindus were burned alive.

    Ignoring the pointless question of whether or not the Muslims "started it," 2,000 people is a lot of people. I really hope that a similar massacre doesn't happen again, in retaliation for the current attack—because it's not hard to see how such massacres can breed more Muslim attacks down the line.

    I think its very much the same as the Israeli/Palestinian issue in that at this point it doesn't really matter who started it, as the recriminations go on forever on both sides. All that matters is who ends it.

    Part of the problem, and I don't mean you specifically, is that events like this happen and each side sees it and then immediately attributes it to the previous actions of the other party. Since the other party was doing the exact same thing when they committed the very act being discussed, it just feeds on itself forever.

    It absolutely matters who started it. The root cause of the issue is that Islam is pretty explicit in it's hatred for polytheists (re:Hindu's). If your belief system and culture are such that they pretty much instruct you to hate another group and you are unwilling to amend it, how in the world is the cycle expected to stop?
    ...So you have no idea about the history of Indian politics, but decide you know what's best anyways? Hint: MOST Muslims get along fine with people of other religions. It's the fanatics that do this shit.

    Also, you sound terribly prejudiced against Muslims, might want to tone that down a bit.

    I actually have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with Islam, and I'm pretty unapologetic about. The founder was a violent murderer, who had people assassinated, advocated war on non-believers, and was a general douchebag.

    People will say that he only acted in the "spirit" of the times, but since the foundations of Islam include the study of his life and actions (Sura and Hadith), and he is considered a revered individual, it's basically impossible to separate his atrocities from the religion itself. After all he is largely considered to be a perfect being by many, having led a sinless life.

    As you have stated, I think the majority of Muslims are perfectly fine people. But i think there will always be that fringe element that feels they are justified in acting as Mohammad would have. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that moderate Muslims are probably non-practicing, in a sense.

    I'm sort of tired of the notion that religions and cultures (or at least certain aspects) are somehow above criticism. Yes, a religion can be bad, and one can be "worse" than another.

    edit: I'd also like to point out that I'm not ignoring the history of Indian politics, I'm just going back to the beginning. The specifics of opinions vary, but many historians believe that Islam was spread violently through India in it's early days in the form of Jihad, thus beginning the spiral of violence that is now well into it's 2nd millennium.

    Last I heard, the Christian stance on nonbelievers wasn't much better.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Last I heard, the Christian stance on nonbelievers wasn't much better.

    Psh, stakes are quite comfortable. Helps the posture.

    Raynaga on
  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    And last I heard neither was the smurfs stance on nonbelievers but that's not relevant to what he said.

    Ritchmeister on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    And last I heard neither was the smurfs stance on nonbelievers but that's not relevant to what he said.

    It was to his "there's violence dem Islams hates dem polys" bullshit.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    What does his comments about one religion have to do about another entirely seperate religion?

    This just sounds like that bullshit of whenever someone criticises something, somebody tries to compare to something that they are involved with.

    Ritchmeister on
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    What does his comments about one religion have to do about another entirely seperate religion?

    This just sounds like that bullshit of whenever someone criticises something, somebody tries to compare to something that they are involved with.

    The original statement was that Islam is fundamentally flawed because of a violent history and intolerance towards outsiders.

    The response is "Uh...ok, if you're going to say that wouldn't you have to say that about most every religion, including Christianity?"

    Seems pretty clear cut.

    Raynaga on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yall wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I think, from the little I know of the situation in India, that it's important to avoid discussing these attacks in a vacuum.

    In 2002, Hindu mobs attacked and killed from 1,000 to 2,000 (largely defenseless) Muslims in the province of Gujarat. (Linku)

    This was itself retaliation for an earlier train station attack by Muslims in which about 60 Hindus were burned alive.

    Ignoring the pointless question of whether or not the Muslims "started it," 2,000 people is a lot of people. I really hope that a similar massacre doesn't happen again, in retaliation for the current attack—because it's not hard to see how such massacres can breed more Muslim attacks down the line.

    I think its very much the same as the Israeli/Palestinian issue in that at this point it doesn't really matter who started it, as the recriminations go on forever on both sides. All that matters is who ends it.

    Part of the problem, and I don't mean you specifically, is that events like this happen and each side sees it and then immediately attributes it to the previous actions of the other party. Since the other party was doing the exact same thing when they committed the very act being discussed, it just feeds on itself forever.

    It absolutely matters who started it. The root cause of the issue is that Islam is pretty explicit in it's hatred for polytheists (re:Hindu's). If your belief system and culture are such that they pretty much instruct you to hate another group and you are unwilling to amend it, how in the world is the cycle expected to stop?
    ...So you have no idea about the history of Indian politics, but decide you know what's best anyways? Hint: MOST Muslims get along fine with people of other religions. It's the fanatics that do this shit.

    Also, you sound terribly prejudiced against Muslims, might want to tone that down a bit.

    I actually have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with Islam, and I'm pretty unapologetic about. The founder was a violent murderer, who had people assassinated, advocated war on non-believers, and was a general douchebag.

    People will say that he only acted in the "spirit" of the times, but since the foundations of Islam include the study of his life and actions (Sura and Hadith), and he is considered a revered individual, it's basically impossible to separate his atrocities from the religion itself. After all he is largely considered to be a perfect being by many, having led a sinless life.

    As you have stated, I think the majority of Muslims are perfectly fine people. But i think there will always be that fringe element that feels they are justified in acting as Mohammad would have. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that moderate Muslims are probably non-practicing, in a sense.

    I'm sort of tired of the notion that religions and cultures (or at least certain aspects) are somehow above criticism. Yes, a religion can be bad, and one can be "worse" than another.

    edit: I'd also like to point out that I'm not ignoring the history of Indian politics, I'm just going back to the beginning. The specifics of opinions vary, but many historians believe that Islam was spread violently through India in it's early days in the form of Jihad, thus beginning the spiral of violence that is now well into it's 2nd millennium.
    I agree with your assessment of Islam.

    However, I do not think that retaliatory massacres by Hindus against Muslims are going to help reform Islam or eliminate its fundamentalist tendencies. In fact, I think they clearly make it worse, just like continued Israeli aggression against Palestine has made the strain of Islam there more vicious and aggressive.

    This has been my entire problem with the "War on Terror" or whatever it's called. Yes, Islam is a problem, fundamentalism is endemic to the religion, and it is a huge danger and ideally should be reformed or wiped out entirely. I don't disagree with the aims, I disagree with the methods. Fundamentalist jihadis wanted us to invade Iraq; they want to get killed en masse while battling the kufr; they want Hindus to massacre Muslims in India so they can better rally the troops. It's not about being soft on Islam, it's about not playing into their hands.

    Edit: And to everyone who says "but Christianity is just as baaad"—no shit. The only reason "The West" today isn't the shit-hole it was 500 years ago is because Christianity lost political power and Christian fundamentalism has gradually been relegated to the fringe (recent American elections notwithstanding). The religion of Islam is far more dominant over its adherents' lives and cultures and governments than Christianity is.

    Qingu on
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »

    Edit: And to everyone who says "but Christianity is just as baaad"—no shit. The only reason "The West" today isn't the shit-hole it was 500 years ago is because Christianity lost political power and Christian fundamentalism has gradually been relegated to the fringe (recent American elections notwithstanding). The religion of Islam is far more dominant over its adherents' lives and cultures and governments than Christianity is.

    I don't think I can lime that enough, its a pretty damn good summarization.

    Raynaga on
  • wishdawishda Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »

    Edit: And to everyone who says "but Christianity is just as baaad"—no shit. The only reason "The West" today isn't the shit-hole it was 500 years ago is because Christianity lost political power and Christian fundamentalism has gradually been relegated to the fringe (recent American elections notwithstanding). The religion of Islam is far more dominant over its adherents' lives and cultures and governments than Christianity is.

    The reason that people get upset about these kind of statements isn't that there isn't a problem with Islam. I'm one of those atheists who think all religions are kind of fucked and that the Abrahamic religions are particularly fucked. But really, the problems with these regions are more political and historical. Religion's a nice short-hand, but it doesn't say much about why these people are killing each other.

    The problem is that saying, "Islam is evil" gives cover to the type of people in the West who want to bomb the local mosque. With the exception of the occasional nest of crazies, the average Western mosque is as radical and dangerous as the Episcopalian church next door. Religions in modern, prosperous democracies tend to be bland and nonthreatening, as the average cubicle worker gravitates toward the type of worship that fits in with their stable, tax-paying lifestyle.

    Sure there are exceptions - mosques in New York that advocate blowing shit up and such. There are also Christian Identity churches that preach the coming race war. For the most part, though, Western services of all faiths are dull, conformist affairs for people who just want to save up enough money to send their kids to a good college.

    wishda on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    wishda wrote: »
    The reason that people get upset about these kind of statements isn't that there isn't a problem with Islam. I'm one of those atheists who think all religions are kind of fucked and that the Abrahamic religions are particularly fucked. But really, the problems with these regions are more political and historical. Religion's a nice short-hand, but it doesn't say much about why these people are killing each other.
    I don't agree with your categorization here. You separate "religion" from "political/historical." But Islam (and Christianity and Judaism, but Islam moreso) is political. The Quran is a legal and political guidebook. In fact, the Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia.

    Now, I do agree that the history of Islam has been hugely influenced by historical and political events outside the context of the Quran and the hadith. But really, I think this is sort of a non-sequitor: our problem is with fundamentalist Muslims who explicitly want to model the world solely by the Quran and the hadith, external elements be damned.
    The problem is that saying, "Islam is evil" gives cover to the type of people in the West who want to bomb the local mosque. With the exception of the occasional nest of crazies, the average Western mosque is as radical and dangerous as the Episcopalian church next door. Religions in modern, prosperous democracies tend to be bland and nonthreatening, as the average cubicle worker gravitates toward the type of worship that fits in with their stable, tax-paying lifestyle.

    Sure there are exceptions - mosques in New York that advocate blowing shit up and such. There are also Christian Identity churches that preach the coming race war. For the most part, though, Western services of all faiths are dull, conformist affairs for people who just want to save up enough money to send their kids to a good college.
    I agree—with one caveat. I think mosques in Western democracies are probably better compared to synagogues ... from the 50's. They're on their way to assimilating, but there are a lot of cultural vestiges that these mosques are helping to uphold (such as the separation of the sexes). Also like Jews in the 50's, assimilation is made harder because the dominant culture of America is pretty hostile to Muslims nowadays, but that feeds into what you're saying.

    But I think it's important to point out that what you want from Islam—what your ideal form of Islam is—is this sort of neutered, "moderate" form found in American mosques, where the religion of Islam has become a sort of flavoring element in a broader worldview, as opposed to one's entire worldview. Your ideal form of Islam resembles modern Judaism and Christianity, where most adherents could give a shit about Yahweh or the Bible and only feign interest in their religion on the high holidays, Christmas and Easter, largely to placate their more traditional relatives. I also hope Islam goes this direction, but let's not mince words: we want Islam watered-down to the point of irrelevance. So it doesn't really make sense for you to simultaneously claim that "Islam is not the problem."

    Qingu on
  • wishdawishda Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    But I think it's important to point out that what you want from Islam—what your ideal form of Islam is—is this sort of neutered, "moderate" form found in American mosques, where the religion of Islam has become a sort of flavoring element in a broader worldview, as opposed to one's entire worldview. Your ideal form of Islam resembles modern Judaism and Christianity, where most adherents could give a shit about Yahweh or the Bible and only feign interest in their religion on the high holidays, Christmas and Easter, largely to placate their more traditional relatives. I also hope Islam goes this direction, but let's not mince words: we want Islam watered-down to the point of irrelevance. So it doesn't really make sense for you to simultaneously claim that "Islam is not the problem."

    When I say Islam is not the problem, I mean that the specific tenets of the faith have less to do with the situation than the various political issues involved. Saudi Arabia is full of bastards because they are a pre-modern desert kingdom sitting on top of an incredibly valuable natural resource.

    It's the money and power this gives them that causes the problem, not Islam per se. If the same situation had occurred in a simliarly primitive animist or Christian nation, you'd have similar problems. The specific tenets of the faith simply have less relevance than the fact that you've got a pre-modern culture that suddenly has a ton of money.

    In India, you've got the similar problem of two vast nations of dirt poor people fighting for historical reasons with a minority of modern, literate peoples of both faiths caught in between. In Bangladesh, you've got the majority of Muslims persecuting Hindus. In India, you've got a resurgent nationalist Hindu party persecuting Muslims. In Pakistan, you've got several flavors of secular and fundamentalist Muslims persecuting each other.

    I'm not saying Islam doesn't have serious issues. I think all of the major Abrahamic faiths have major problems. I'm just saying that reducing this to a problem of Islam is overly reductionist and plays into the persecution of Western Muslims, who for the most part don't have the same issues as their co-believers in the more fucked-up parts of the world.

    wishda on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    wishda wrote: »
    When I say Islam is not the problem, I mean that the specific tenets of the faith have less to do with the situation than the various political issues involved. Saudi Arabia is full of bastards because they are a pre-modern desert kingdom sitting on top of an incredibly valuable natural resource.

    It's the money and power this gives them that causes the problem, not Islam per se. If the same situation had occurred in a simliarly primitive animist or Christian nation, you'd have similar problems. The specific tenets of the faith simply have less relevance than the fact that you've got a pre-modern culture that suddenly has a ton of money.

    In India, you've got the similar problem of two vast nations of dirt poor people fighting for historical reasons with a minority of modern, literate peoples of both faiths caught in between. In Bangladesh, you've got the majority of Muslims persecuting Hindus. In India, you've got a resurgent nationalist Hindu party persecuting Muslims. In Pakistan, you've got several flavors of secular and fundamentalist Muslims persecuting each other.
    I agree that there's always going to be tension when pre-modern states are thrust into modernity. However, Saudi Arabia seems to be a special case, and I would argue this is directly because of its fundamentalist Salafi state religion. The current leaders of Saudi Arabia gained power through an alliance with fundamentalists; today they spend their oil wealth exporting this ideology. There are modern elements in Saudi Arabia, but in places like Riyadh they are strangled by the mutawa'in (religious police), whose duty is basically to uphold the backwards culture of the first three generations of Muhammad's followers.

    In places like China and India, the official government forces, for all their corruption, ostensibly have the opposite duty. The Chinese government and its police, like it or not, is a modernizing force (the Chinese police's duty is not to uphold ancient Confuscianist principles). This is not the case in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, where theocrats hold political power.
    I'm not saying Islam doesn't have serious issues. I think all of the major Abrahamic faiths have major problems. I'm just saying that reducing this to a problem of Islam is overly reductionist and plays into the persecution of Western Muslims, who for the most part don't have the same issues as their co-believers in the more fucked-up parts of the world.
    I agree and I disagree (again!) I don't want to overgeneralize the problem here; I also don't want to help foster stupid intolerance, like that idiotic woman at the McCain rally who worried about Obama being an A-rab. But at the same time, the Quran is a relatively simple book; it is simple to critique, and the problematic elements of Islam quite simply want to use this book as a moral and political guide. I think there is also a dange of missing the forest for the trees.

    Qingu on
  • wishdawishda Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    I agree that there's always going to be tension when pre-modern states are thrust into modernity. However, Saudi Arabia seems to be a special case, and I would argue this is directly because of its fundamentalist Salafi state religion. The current leaders of Saudi Arabia gained power through an alliance with fundamentalists; today they spend their oil wealth exporting this ideology. There are modern elements in Saudi Arabia, but in places like Riyadh they are strangled by the mutawa'in (religious police), whose duty is basically to uphold the backwards culture of the first three generations of Muhammad's followers.

    In places like China and India, the official government forces, for all their corruption, ostensibly have the opposite duty. The Chinese government and its police, like it or not, is a modernizing force (the Chinese police's duty is not to uphold ancient Confuscianist principles). This is not the case in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, where theocrats hold political power.

    No doubt that Saudi Arabia is a special case. The kingdom has used its money to spread, in the form of Wahhabisim - a particularly fundamentalist and anti-modern form of their religion throughout the Muslim world. They are, quite simply, stirring up a ton of shit in the world while being protected by their control of a huge fraction of the world's oil.

    The trouble I have with laying this on Islam, though, is that pretty much every theology has a radical intepretation. If, say, the pilgrims controlling colonial Massachusetts were transported into the modern world and given the same amount of money, you'd have similar problems.

    Iran is also a special case, in that there is a a lot of evidence that the population has grown tired of the theocrats. If we can dial down the tension for a decade or two, I believe that the secular forces in the nation could win out.

    I think my larger point is that any widespread denunciation of Islam is counterproductive. It manages to reinforce racism against Western Muslims, who are largely loyal citizens of their home nations, while not addressing the specific and complex causes of Islamic violence on the world stage.

    wishda on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    wishda wrote: »
    The reason that people get upset about these kind of statements isn't that there isn't a problem with Islam. I'm one of those atheists who think all religions are kind of fucked and that the Abrahamic religions are particularly fucked. But really, the problems with these regions are more political and historical. Religion's a nice short-hand, but it doesn't say much about why these people are killing each other.
    I don't agree with your categorization here. You separate "religion" from "political/historical." But Islam (and Christianity and Judaism, but Islam moreso) is political. The Quran is a legal and political guidebook. In fact, the Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia.

    Now, I do agree that the history of Islam has been hugely influenced by historical and political events outside the context of the Quran and the hadith. But really, I think this is sort of a non-sequitor: our problem is with fundamentalist Muslims who explicitly want to model the world solely by the Quran and the hadith, external elements be damned.
    The problem is that saying, "Islam is evil" gives cover to the type of people in the West who want to bomb the local mosque. With the exception of the occasional nest of crazies, the average Western mosque is as radical and dangerous as the Episcopalian church next door. Religions in modern, prosperous democracies tend to be bland and nonthreatening, as the average cubicle worker gravitates toward the type of worship that fits in with their stable, tax-paying lifestyle.

    Sure there are exceptions - mosques in New York that advocate blowing shit up and such. There are also Christian Identity churches that preach the coming race war. For the most part, though, Western services of all faiths are dull, conformist affairs for people who just want to save up enough money to send their kids to a good college.
    I agree—with one caveat. I think mosques in Western democracies are probably better compared to synagogues ... from the 50's. They're on their way to assimilating, but there are a lot of cultural vestiges that these mosques are helping to uphold (such as the separation of the sexes). Also like Jews in the 50's, assimilation is made harder because the dominant culture of America is pretty hostile to Muslims nowadays, but that feeds into what you're saying.

    But I think it's important to point out that what you want from Islam—what your ideal form of Islam is—is this sort of neutered, "moderate" form found in American mosques, where the religion of Islam has become a sort of flavoring element in a broader worldview, as opposed to one's entire worldview. Your ideal form of Islam resembles modern Judaism and Christianity, where most adherents could give a shit about Yahweh or the Bible and only feign interest in their religion on the high holidays, Christmas and Easter, largely to placate their more traditional relatives. I also hope Islam goes this direction, but let's not mince words: we want Islam watered-down to the point of irrelevance. So it doesn't really make sense for you to simultaneously claim that "Islam is not the problem."

    Okay, seriously, what the fuck? Are we not allowed to have our own culture anymore? Should we just burn our yarmulkes and celebrate Easter? Jewish culture is entirely benign, especially when compared to other religions, and teaches many values better suited to modernity than western society in general (namely placing a very high value on knowledge and education).

    As for the violence in the middle east, part of the problem is that being in the middle of the desert tends to remind people of their mortality, a reminder which studies show turns people into intolerant assfucks.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Jewish culture is no more sacred than any other culture, which is not at all.

    Cultures are, arguably, ideally just means to an end, and are not ends in themselves, as with any other ruling force in a person's life (government, et cetera).

    But yes, Judaism has a very strong humanistic aspect, but it also has a great deal of cloisterism, which has been freaking people out for thousands of years.

    --

    Scarcity does have a habit of making people freak out. It's part of why global cooperation is so vital... if nations would stop fucking with each other's to obtain -basic- resources they wouldn't be -quite- as intent on attacking each other with their mineral resources.

    Unfortunately, without a basic humanistic notion of "human beings matter in and of themselves" it's going to be an uphill battle.

    Incenjucar on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Okay, seriously, what the fuck? Are we not allowed to have our own culture anymore? Should we just burn our yarmulkes and celebrate Easter? Jewish culture is entirely benign, especially when compared to other religions, and teaches many values better suited to modernity than western society in general (namely placing a very high value on knowledge and education).
    First of all, I was actually saying that modern Jewish culture is a "model" of assimilation.

    Second of all—you think I'm implying Jews should switch to celebrating Easter? Have we met? I'm Qingu, and for an example of my feelings about Easter, see the link in my signature.

    Thirdly, the reason "Jewish culture" today is largely benign is because it has wholly abandoned every moral, political and social instruction from its original tradition, with the exception of a few trappings (like yarmulkes and shit) and a selection of morals that remain congruent with the dominant post-enlightenment morality of Western culture today (like "educate your children"). Most Jews today, quite simply, do not take their religion seriously—my grandparents claim to be Jewish and have immersed themselves in Jewish culture, but they don't even believe in Yahweh, let alone upholding 98% of his commandments—and this is a good thing. (If my grandparents followed even half of the commandments in the Bible, I would probably be dead right now.)

    There are exceptions—for example, my Hasidic Jewish cousins, whose parents had 10 kids they couldn't support because "be fruitful and multiply," then refused to educate the girls at all, and homeschooled the boys in such a way that their only tenable career path is now to become Hasidic rabbis themselves. I think this culture, like backwards evangelical Christian cultures, is dangerous because children raised in this culture have no future and are often taught pernicious lies and conspiracy theories. And I think you would agree with me, because your ideal Jewish culture values knowledge and education.

    The earliest historical Jewish cultures were incredibly dangerous. The ancient Hebrews, if the Bible is any guide, were a deranged, genocidal cult. During Greek and Roman times, Judaism diversified, but many dominant strains were simply violent terrorists. The Maccabees—the heroes of the Hannukah story—strike me as more similar to al-Qaeda or the Taliban than any kind of "heroes" I'd want my kids to grow up venerating. After the destruction of the second temple, Judaism has changed dramatically, and the religion today has more in common with modern secular Christianity than it does with its historical roots. Even Hasidic Jews take more from the Talmud (written largely in the intervening centuries) than they do from the ancient and late antique Hebrews.
    As for the violence in the middle east, part of the problem is that being in the middle of the desert tends to remind people of their mortality, a reminder which studies show turns people into intolerant assfucks.
    Speaking of overgeneralizations....

    Edit: re-reading what I wrote which prompted your response—I didn't mean to imply that synagogues in the 50's upheld stupid practices like "segregation of the sexes" like some mosques do today. That was a poorly-explained analogy on my part.

    Qingu on
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.