Islamism isn't about religions, of course.

[Martinus]

It's a not a rebuttal, it's a statement of preference.  We should fix our own culture first before we volunteer to fix other peoples' cultures, as deplorable as those are in their own right.

I am sure those gays slaughtered in Orlando would have felt better if they knew local American rednecks would not refuse to sell them wedding cakes.

[Martinus]

It's a not a rebuttal, it's a statement of preference.  We should fix our own culture first before we volunteer to fix other peoples' cultures, as deplorable as those are in their own right.

1. Shitty moral equivalence is shitty.
2. "We should not help oppressed people elsewhere until everything is perfect for our own people" has always been a particularly vile argument.
3. The culture we are fixing is not "half the world away" - it's right here. And it comes with guns, bombs and planes used as weapons of mass slaughter.

[Martinus]

It's a not a rebuttal, it's a statement of preference.  We should fix our own culture first before we volunteer to fix other peoples' cultures, as deplorable as those are in their own right.

I don't think anyone is advocating volunteering to fix anyone else culture though, but I appreciate the shift in the message from "This isn't a religious problem!" to "Maybe it is, but I don't care." Progress.

Hey, it's a wonderful message. It could have worked very well in the 1980s too: "America has its own racial problems, so it has no standing to tell South Africa to end apartheid."

[Monoriu]

I don't understand the significance of this question.  So what if Islamism is about religion or not? 

[Razgovory]

Probably something that Sam Harris was raving about.

[Martinus]

I don't understand the significance of this question.  So what if Islamism is about religion or not?

I guess that's as important as the question whether flu is caused by bacteria, viruses or cold vapours.

[Valmy]

"Obama and Clinton's schools are not for us!" shouted Mahmoud Abu Rakhiya, an Islamist in Maan, a desert town in southern Jordan, at a rally on a recent Friday in late September. In the capital, Amman, around the same time, teachers set a pile of textbooks on fire. A woman in a white face veil shouted: "We don't need these textbooks anyway! We will teach them what we want!"

So, not unlike Texas.

Well at least everybody mostly admits that is about religion

[grumbler]

I think that we need to stop pretending that every complaint or protest lodged as a "religious matter" is really about religion.  Religion is an easy substitute for more complex motivations and issues.  The protestant reformation wasn't about religion for more than maybe two or three months after Luther posted his religious tract at Wittenberg.  There was a religious element to the reformation, but it was more about the secular situation than the religious one.

In Jordan, complaints about government textbook changes are likely fueled, at least in part, by peoples' attitudes towards and unrepresentative and corrupt government.  The objections to changes themselves, expressed as "religious objections," don't seem very religious at all.

[viper37]

And more to the point...how is it even relevant anyway? Trotting out Christian extremism in response to concerns about Islamic extremism is like saying "Yeah, but Hillary is a liar!" in response to someone talking about Trump lying about basically everything, all the time. It is non-responsive. It might be true that Christians can be crazy as well, or it might not, and in either case it doesn't make me any less worried when I see that even the most moderate of attempts at reform in Muslim "moderate" countries like Jordan is met by an extreme backlash by what we would all consider to be "moderate" Muslims.

The problem is singling out Islamic extremism when you talk of extremism.
To use your analogy, if you want to discuss the problem of politicians lying and you single out Trump while ignoring Hillary's lies, you don't achieve anything because only Democrats would listen to you.

Islamic extremism is a matter of culture as well as religion.  The two are difficult to seperate as they merge together over time.  Christianity in the Southern US States is not the same Christianity as in Quebec.  Even New England Catholics, heavily influenced by Irish immigrants is different than Catholicism as practiced in Quebec.

When a 9 year old girl and her family are excommunicated in Brazil for having an abortion after a rape, some Catholics will feel outrage that it still happens in their religion.  Some other will feel the real punishment was on the child to be and there was already enough suffering without need to add more.
But you still get some reaction because:
a) a centralized clergy
b) the way the religion is structured around a centralized clergy.

With Islam, it's much more individualistic.  Every muslim has his own way to achieve enlightment, to seek the Truth.  For some, it involves violence while others will totally reject it.  These problems are emphasized by religious teachings, as they were in the past, when the Church controlled our schools.

While there is a problem of religion in Islam, namely the way many members of the religion are so easily swayed over toward more extreme form of practice, it is hardly, solely, a religious problem.  If we look at Africa, there was/is a lot of conlficts that isn't always religious moderated.  Figure Rwanda or Congo.

I think blaming all of islam, all of muslims for the actions of extremists groups is counter-productive and is akin to blaming all Christians for the fundies supporting Trump.  Not all Christians are crazy lunatics wishing to live in a theocracy. Only a tiny dangerous minority.

There are radical branches of Islam, and other religions, and they must be fought in an ideological war, like nazism and communism were fought.  A mix of war-like approach and education.

And yes, the symbols of the ennemy must not be allowed here.  Unlike Jacob, I'm not ready to surrender my country to radical extremists.  But I certainly won't join Grallon&the likes to demonize all muslims.

As your articles point out, the problem in Jordan is a backlash from the conservative elements of society.  The fight because they know they are losing their best battlefield: the school.

And it's something we must be inspired with.  We can't do much about the Middle East, about how they organize their society. But we can certainly act here.  No religious schools that don't teach a minimum secular curriculum on science, no integral veils or religious symbols in public institution, no face covered for identification purpose (no driver license's picture with burka or niqab), etc.

We must purge religion from our public life and only then shall we achieve some progress.  Otherwise, the religious fundies win.

You talk of Christian extremists being made irrelevant in the US (I think the battle is not won yet), but it was achieved after lenghty battles to secularize education, namely by removing creationims from public schools and the Ten Commandments from courtrooms.  Only once that were done did other fights became possible, like recognizing gay marriage. 

[Berkut]

No argument from me viper, except with the comment about "blaming all of Islam". I think that is a dangerous and common strawman raised.

I think the people arguing, as I do, that the problems we are talking about are *religious* problems are certainly NOT "blaming all of Islam". Indeed, it is basically the exact opposite. It isn't about who to blame, it is actually about who to support - namely those who are interested in reform and figuring out how to make Islam fit in with modern liberal values. Clearly this is possible, since we have plenty of examples where it is working just fine.

But the danger is that in an effort to be *seen* as accepting and inclusive, we end up kind of sticking our heads in the ground about the actual reality of the depth and scale of the problem. We compare it to Christianity in the US, indeed, this seems to be the go-to deflection strategy.

But it is not even remotely comparable. I wish it were, in fact. Crazy as Christians are worrisome, without a doubt. But they are what people want to pretend is the case in Islam - in a practical sense, the crazy Christians are a tiny minority of most Christians, and have been effectively marginalized. That is absolutely what I would hope we could get to in most Islamic countries. Where the crazies are just some blathering nutjobs most people ignore.

But that is not where we are today, no matter how much we want to pretend it is the case, and this article makes exactly that point in Jordan. A nominally "moderate" Islamic country where even the beginning of a move towards secularizing schools is met with violent backlash, and widespread condemnation. The reality is that the "moderate" Muslims in much of the world are not very moderate at all by any objective liberal standard.

This comparison to radical Christians is completely false and misleading, in both their numbers and their actual power and effect. No matter how much I get pissed off at Texas Christians fucking up education and biology, or the Tea Party religious douchebags who are sure global warming is fake because God Gave Us The Earth For Our Use, they don't blow people up routinely, they don't kill thousands of people, and they don't have the power to force hundreds of millions to live in fear, ignorance, and intolerance.

It is not the same in degree, even if it is similar in kind.

[Tamas]

[Hamilcar]

Probably something that Sam Harris was raving about.

You really have a weird fixation on the guy. Sure you don't just secretly fancy him?

[Razgovory]

Probably something that Sam Harris was raving about.

You really have a weird fixation on the guy. Sure you don't just secretly fancy him?

I find it amusing that Berkut, the clear-eyed man of logic and reason indoctrinates himself the same way Trump supporters indoctrinate themselves on Breitbart or the daily stormer.

I also kept an eye out on all four of the "Horsemen of new Atheism".  A Trotskyist, two closet authoritarians and Daniel Dennett.

[viper37]

No argument from me viper, except with the comment about "blaming all of Islam". I think that is a dangerous and common strawman raised.

In so far, that hasn't been the case from you specifically.  And I tend to agree with most of what you say.

It isn't about who to blame, it is actually about who to support - namely those who are interested in reform and figuring out how to make Islam fit in with modern liberal values. Clearly this is possible, since we have plenty of examples where it is working just fine.

Yeah, but then, often, we (as occidental nations) would end up supporting a dictatorship (like Egypt) over democracy.  We always have to thread carefully about whom we support abroad.  Certainly, Al Sissi is better than the alternative, but at the same time, he isn't exactly attacking only ultra religious opponents bent on overthrowing his rule.  Any kind of moderate criticism against the government is met with swift retaliation, ranging from prison to torture or death for the worst case.

But the danger is that in an effort to be *seen* as accepting and inclusive, we end up kind of sticking our heads in the ground about the actual reality of the depth and scale of the problem. We compare it to Christianity in the US, indeed, this seems to be the go-to deflection strategy.

But it is not even remotely comparable. I wish it were, in fact. Crazy as Christians are worrisome, without a doubt. But they are what people want to pretend is the case in Islam - in a practical sense, the crazy Christians are a tiny minority of most Christians, and have been effectively marginalized. That is absolutely what I would hope we could get to in most Islamic countries. Where the crazies are just some blathering nutjobs most people ignore.

This is where I partly disagree.  Yes, radical islam is the most dangerous today, as we speak.  It used to be Christians who would bomb abortion clinic in the 70s&80s.  Today, Islamists bomb gay nightclubs.

If you single out Islam because it's the current threat, there will be a backlash from the moderate muslims, instead of cooperation.

But that is not where we are today, no matter how much we want to pretend it is the case, and this article makes exactly that point in Jordan. A nominally "moderate" Islamic country where even the beginning of a move towards secularizing schools is met with violent backlash, and widespread condemnation. The reality is that the "moderate" Muslims in much of the world are not very moderate at all by any objective liberal standard.

Again, it's a question of culture.  Compare the Jordan situation with any 3rd world country, islamic or not, you would see similar things happening.

Of course, the US should keep supporting Jordan, but there is a big catch: too much support and encouragement and the conservatives will have an easier time convincing the local populace on the fence that it is a big move by the US to destroy their culture.

This comparison to radical Christians is completely false and misleading, in both their numbers and their actual power and effect. No matter how much I get pissed off at Texas Christians fucking up education and biology, or the Tea Party religious douchebags who are sure global warming is fake because God Gave Us The Earth For Our Use, they don't blow people up routinely, they don't kill thousands of people, and they don't have the power to force hundreds of millions to live in fear, ignorance, and intolerance.

The result of such radical Christians having so much power in the US is directly in front of you at the Presidential level.  Trump might have been neutralized this time, but the next time, you might just get someone as incompetent who will pass.  Someone like GW Bush and Dick Cheney who will convince most of the populace that their true ennemy is in some 3rd world country that needs to be destroyed.  And then you have another, more dangerous power assuming the void.

It is not the same in degree, even if it is similar in kind.

I agree, but it is still a threat that must be tackled.  If you fuck education, you fuck the future.  Radical islam did not develop overnight.  Saudis started funding schools & various religious movements.  Bin Laden funded religious charities all accross the muslim world, and took the opportunity to teach his vision of islam.

Radical religions are as much ideological as communism used to be.  They don't appear overnight.  They don't spread simply by word of mouth. They have a funding network often tied to various charities and missionary work.  Foreign powers like the Saudis will fund salafist schools all accross the world.  Radical islamists send people to act as beachheads and push our regulations further&further toward what they want, and then they pressure other muslims to act the way they want.

Radical christians do pretty much the same thing: they fund charities that spread their message, they send missonaries that twist education abroad to shape people into thinking like them.  Right now they aren't a big threat because they are close to power.  They practically control the US Congress and they have a good shot at the presidency.  Would the situation be different from radical islam if they had lost all hope of achieving their agenda?  I highly doubt it.

It takes a while to change mentality, and Jordan has the right approach, so far.  It may seem like timid reforms, just like the democratic reforms appear timid too, but I think over the very long term they will succeed, where others failed.

[Berkut]

You are rather tiresome. Sam Harris didn't write the article I posted, and Sam Harris has nothing to do with the thread, except for your fixation on him. He is your Hillary Clinton, for some bizarre reason.

You are a net negative to the informational content of most threads you post in. Shoo.