Western values and Islam are very, very compatible

[MadImmortalMan]

many individuals exist who reject or deviate from their own culture

Certainly.  Given that, how do you come to the conclusion that it "could be culture?"

Or are you taking the position that, outside of the hard sciences, nothing is provable?

Culture can be more important than religion when it comes to human motivations. Obviously, religion informs culture, but Islam is somewhat different than most religions in that its tenets demand that it not only be the religion but the culture and government too. Sharia, etc.

Christianity had these struggles a long time ago, but it was never as overtly stated for Catholics that they should also be kings. It was easier for them to reform in that way. Buddhists, Taoists, etc--way easier.

[CountDeMoney]

I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party.  He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam.  I hope Trump tries to do the same.

Trump on the future of proposed Muslim ban, registry: 'You know my plans'

[11B4V]

Trumpenreich

[Ed Anger]

Trumpenreich

I'd look good in a leather trenchcoat carrying an attaché case. HAIL TRUMP

[viper37]

Pretending that something that is obviously not true is in fact true because it makes us feel better,

Well, that's the basis of any religion, isn't it?  We believe in something greater than us because it makes us feel good.  People believe mythical figures guide their lives/destiny, take away their burden when it's too heavy for them, etc. Others believe God(s) is/are cruel and toy with them, either to mock them or to test htem.  It gives them comfort to believe there is something out there looking out for them, for good or for bad.  It's been like that pretty much since we got down from the trees.

or we imagine that it will be seen as more "tolerant", has it's own negative repercussions.

I disagree with Jacob's and our Prime Minister's view that there is no such thing as a religious extremist, that it's only a matter of communication.  But at the same time I disagree with those that will single out Islam as a monolithic bloc of evil (yes, paraphrasing here, and I'm not implying it's what you're saying).

There is certainly lots of problems with Islam, as a religion and as a culture, but I don't think it's fair to assume Islam is the main driving force behind the political violence.  Russians are bombarding civilians, on purpose, how is this better than detonating a bomb in a crowded market?  Because one does it for law and order and the other for God there should be a significant difference of degrees in barbarity?

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".  Yet, many medias are reporting it as a terror act.  When US Air Force soldiers paint a bomb "For 9/11" is it a Christian act of terror?  Don't think so.

[Berkut]

There is certainly lots of problems with Islam, as a religion and as a culture, but I don't think it's fair to assume Islam is the main driving force behind the political violence.

Put a pin in that for a moment, we will return to it...

Russians are bombarding civilians, on purpose, how is this better than detonating a bomb in a crowded market? 

Who are you arguing with? Who said it was better?

Because one does it for law and order and the other for God there should be a significant difference of degrees in barbarity?

What?

How is the motives of people engaging in dis-similar acts somehow a measure of "should be" differences in barbarity?

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.

So?

  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".

Congratulations, you've pointed out that it is possible to do things for reasons other than religion.

  Yet, many medias are reporting it as a terror act.

So?

Did I call it ia "terror act", whatever that is?

Did I say it was a religious act?

What difference does that particular act make to my point anyway?

When US Air Force soldiers paint a bomb "For 9/11" is it a Christian act of terror?  Don't think so.

Agreed. Not only is not a act of terror, it has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You've bravely enlightened us all to the fact that not all actions are religiously motivated, nor is all violence religiously motivated.

Congratulations?

[Tonitrus]

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep". 

Except that...he did.

[Berkut]

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep". 

Except that...he did.

We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.

[Grey Fox]

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep". 

Except that...he did.

We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.

No that's the conservative right model.

[Grey Fox]

I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party.  He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam.  I hope Trump tries to do the same.

Why?

[Berkut]

That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.  He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep". 

Except that...he did.

We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.

No that's the conservative right model.

I wish it were only limited to that set of crazies.

However, the foundation of what drives people to ignore obvious facts that counter their cherished conclusions is nearly universal.

[viper37]

It's very true.  Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.

Because the US is still a civilized place with a decent judicial system.  Once such structures have been weakened, or have completely fallen, lots of things can happen, and religion can become one factor among many others.

If you look at Rwanda, the people slaughtering themselves were good Christians.  In ex Yougoslavia, the murders were mainly committed by Christians.  At some point, Muslims were the target for Christian violence.  When it wasn't Christian on Christian violence.  That wasn't 1000 years ago.

Would you characterize Christianity as an inherent violent religion?  Since the beginning of Christianity, there's been a lot of violence committed in the name of God.  Hard violence like genocide, soft violence like colonization to bring enlightment to the populations who did not know God, all kinds of violence.

Christianity has been used to justify slavery.  And to end it.  It has been used to promote racial equality.  And to maintain segregation.

I just don't see much differences between religions.  They all have good, they all have evils.  What people do with them is the problem.  Just because someone claims to be acting on behalf of a religion does not mean it's the Truth.  No more than right wing extremists shooting a bunch of blacks or socialists are acting in my name when they say they did it for the White race.

Again, the problem isn't with Islam itself.  It's a religion of Peace, a religion of War, just like Christianity.

[Berkut]

Christianity has been used to justify slavery. 

And if we were talking about whether or not Christianity contributes to the problem of slavery, this would be a good point to bring up.

And to end it. 

And if we were talking about whether Christian theology had a hand in driving abolition, this would be an excellent point to bring up.

It has been used to promote racial equality.  And to maintain segregation.

So?

You can provide a hundred example of where some particular belief system has contriguted to human behavior.

Although I think you are being a little (intentionally) vague in your agency here.

There is a difference between a beliefs system being used to justify behavior, and a belief system motivating that behavior. You seem to be arguing that Christianity was used to justify slavery, for example. That suggests that those who practiced slavery and said it was ok because of the bible didn't actually believe what they were saying, they were just justifying it.

I think when we are talking about jihadism, that is a downright dishonest position to take. It is always hard to determine what other people actually believe. But it isn't impossible. And I think when it comes to radical Islam, we have pretty damn good evidence that people really do believe what they say - they are not "justifying" their actions, when those actions include their own physical destruction. I think we can very safely accept that a suicide bomber actually does believe he or she is going to wake up in heaven.

"They all have good, they all have evils". Your entire position is a ridiciulous effort to remove human agency in order to maintain the dearly cherished idea that you are "tolerant", even when that tolerance amounts to denial of actual human beings capability of driving their own agency. Rather than accept that people actually make decisions based on their religious beliefs, you want to water down those beliefs to meaninglessness - they are all the same, there is nothing different. This is dangerous, foolish, and intellectually vapid. It results in a lot of hand wringing and insistence on moral equivalence.

In a practical sense, it results in people like Donald Trump winning presidencies. When the only person speaking honestly about the problem are the people whose solutions are a fucking nightmare, you end up with those people in charge. Obama and Clinton are so entangled in this world view that demands this moral equivalence between all possible belief systems that they won't even identify and label the problem, even while they are actually taking actions that clearly show that they DO in fact rationally understand that all religions are not the same, and act accordingly!

When Christian fundamentalists start driving cars into crowds in Germany, Germany should start having some discussion about what those beliefs systems mean, how they interact with modern society, what security threats that creates, and how to deal with them. They should not wring their hands and note how Buddhists have been known to be violent as well, so we really should not consider what the Christians actually believe, and just keep mouthing platitudes that assure us that we are sufficiently PC and tolerant at the expense of everything else.

I just don't see much differences between religions.  They all have good, they all have evils.  What people do with them is the problem.  Just because someone claims to be acting on behalf of a religion does not mean it's the Truth.  No more than right wing extremists shooting a bunch of blacks or socialists are acting in my name when they say they did it for the White race.

Again, the problem isn't with Islam itself.  It's a religion of Peace, a religion of War, just like Christianity.
[/quote]

[The Minsky Moment]

But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem.  Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on".   He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy. 

[CountDeMoney]

I really fucking hope, if Der Füror is going to go to all the trouble of establishing a Mooselimb registry, that we'll at least be able to order 12-person place settings instead of the conventional 8-person set.