Military coup in Myanmar

[Valmy]

That's generally the case in Islamic countries with apostasy laws as well.  Lots of civil and criminal penalties short of death, though, which isn't the case with Judaism.

Yeah it is still a crime and often a source of devastating social shunning and pressure.

The apostasy issue is definitely an area of concern. Apostates need to be protected where applicable.

devastating social shunning will happen with some christian denominations.  I know the Jeovah's Witnesses and some Mormont for sure, but in the vast realm of Protestantism, I'm pretty sure there will be also be social exclusions in many places, most likely smaller, thighter knit communities.  I recently read about a former Evangelist who lost all contact with her mother and family following her decision to leave their religious community. 

In Judaism, I think only some of the Ultra-Orthodox communities will shun their former members if they leave the sect.  Am I correct in assuming this, Malthus?

Wow we have dangerous cults and extremist sects in the United States that practice dangerous social control over their members? Wow thank you for this brand new information it is not like I live here or anything or have specifically mentioned them on this board. All those sects plus the ultra-orthodox are well known for these horrible practices.

Not great company for Islam to be keeping. Nor does it reflect particularly well on Christianity that it seems to organically breed these kinds of insular groups all the time.

It's funny that some people get their pants in such a twist over Muslims because islamophobia is such a recent thing.

I have zero problem with Muslims. I don't think it is irrational to regard persecution of apostates with concern though.

[garbon]

  I have an argument and evidence, and you have some random links with no argument and maybe no evidence.  I don't think you quite get the concept of a dialectic.

Since when have any arguments been about reconciling points of view?

[grumbler]

  I have an argument and evidence, and you have some random links with no argument and maybe no evidence.  I don't think you quite get the concept of a dialectic.

Since when have any arguments been about reconciling points of view?

Dialectic isn't about reconciliation.  I have no idea what goal you have for arguments.

[Malthus]

In Judaism, I think only some of the Ultra-Orthodox communities will shun their former members if they leave the sect.  Am I correct in assuming this, Malthus?

I don't really know. I know that shunning is what you would expect from some ultra-orthodox or Hassidic groups. I know that it is a complete non-issue with Reform or Reconstruction types. In general, they simply join whatever congregation is convenient to where they live and accords with their personal beliefs, ones that have friends & family at, etc. and if someone drops out, it's not a big deal ... though if someone goes to the trouble of joining a whole new religion, that may be remarked on. Mostly because it would be seen as a sign of theological enthusiasm, and so remarkable (most people I know who are Reform or Reconstruction are not theologically-minded: their 'religion' is one more of identity and ritual, than of theological belief). They would not be "shunned" though.

What other groups, such as modern Orthodox or Conservative, would do, I don't know. My guess is that the more orthodox you are, the more this would be an issue.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ivan puts it quite well--the West should not carve out special treatment for religious expression or practice of religion. The other bedrocks of Western liberal freedoms protect any valid practice of religion--freedom of speech, assembly etc. Specific carve outs for religion lead to far more harm than good. In the United States it is far more likely that it is bad Christian behaviors that are getting dangerous special protections, but it proves the point to me that religion shouldn't be treated as any different from a political ideology. We have a freedom in the West to adhere to any political ideology we want, and we can advocate for it. However if I'm out advocating for Nazism, society should rightfully view me as a virus, an enemy. It should work to do as much as it can to discredit and marginalize me. Islam should be seen as no different.

No one is arguing for rounding up and killing all the white supremacists and qAnon clowns in America, much as I might love to see that happen. And I don't think anyone is arguing for a Uighur or Rohingya style campaign in the West either. What I have said is these non-Western, autocratic countries with very different systems of government and culture than ours, are correct in recognizing Islam as a threat. The way they respond to it will be quite a bit rougher than anything we would do in the West, or that we should want to do in the West. In the West we have to act within the constraints of our legal systems and our conceptions of civil liberties. There is no real norm for that in China or Myanmar, and their behavior I think is fairly logical within the boundaries of the societies they have--which implicitly are not Western liberal societies.

Societies have a right to defend themselves, and the way China or Myanmar defend themselves is going to look different than France or the United States.

[Valmy]

I think we defend ourselves by presenting ideas that make these conservative religious ideas look shitty by comparison and, at least from where I sit, this is already working out well. A pretty large percentage of people born into Muslim families are either leaving the religion entirely or adopting a cultural Muslim type identity instead or some kind of hippy version of the religion, which is exactly what we want. The more we go after them the more reactionary conservative forces in that community will be ascendant.

But things might be different in Texas than elsewhere in the United States and the other western countries.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I think we defend ourselves by presenting ideas that make these conservative religious ideas look shitty by comparison and, at least from where I sit, this is already working out well. A pretty large percentage of people born into Muslim families are either leaving the religion entirely or adopting a cultural Muslim type identity instead or some kind of hippy version of the religion, which is exactly what we want. The more we go after them the more reactionary conservative forces in that community will be ascendant.

But things might be different in Texas than elsewhere in the United States and the other western countries.

Ruud Koopman has done, and is doing (iirc), research on that in European countries. And his findings aren't really optimistic: religious fundamentalism is on the rise in the muslim communities, with it representing the majority or near-majority view in the communities in a number of countries.
And it's not like the european countries haven't bent over backwards to accommodate them, or that the main stream press is not (extremely) islamophile. The result being that we're still fighting the same emancipatory battles as we did in the 60's and the 70's.

As it is: I don't think the experience of the US can be compared to that of Europe. Distance and far more stringent immigration laws than in the western european countries draw less and a different type of migrant.


edit: and on topic:
there've been big protests in Burma. People aren't taking this lying down. Meaning that the chance this spirals out of control rises

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't really think the Muslim community in America is instructive, it is very small, very dispersed, and in a big country that (frankly) has integrated a lot of minority groups before. America has a lot of racial issues, but some of that is born of experience. A lot of European countries were extremely homogeneous (meaning 95%+ or higher from one ethnic group) until the 1980s, and the scale and amount of Islamic migration is pretty unprecedented there and I'm not sure America's experience with a smaller population spread over a much bigger country, is going to be helpful. Also the nature of the migration was different, a lot of Muslim immigrants to America have historically been middle class fleeing political problems at home, for example we had big influxes of Labanese and Iranians in the 60s-80s, and middle class / educated Indian Muslims who have come over to work in professional jobs. These people often are in a good place to shed most of the bad teachings of Islam pretty quickly, and because of their relative economic status and education they are easily able to secure good work which helps Americanize them. Admittedly the composition of those migrants has changed a little bit in the last 20 years with refugees from Somalia and a few other places but it's really nothing like Europe which has just had huge successive waves of extremely ill educated, extremely impoverished, Muslim refugees basically come in and be unable to easily integrate with society, become wards of the state, and then fester in a cesspot of internecine fanatacist propaganda etc.

[Threviel]

There's a point there. The recent muslim immigration to Sweden numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Almost 250000 Syrians alone and almost 150 000 Iraqis. That's out of a total population of 10 million.

2 million out of those 10 were born abroad. Finland, Poland and Iran ar the other on the top three list with 80 000 from Iran. In 2016 there were a million muslims and it has been increasing fast. They are also present everywhere, every little town and village took in refugees although they are mostly concentrated to the big cities.

Most of the immigrants not from muslim countries have been in Sweden for decades or are immigrants from other rich western countries.

A recent political discussion is imported labour. There's a shortage of dishwashers, cleaners and the like. Swedish companies hire abroad for very low pay low skill works whilst at the same time a lot of the recent immigrants are poor and unemployed.

And in addition to that it's often easy to spot the middle eastern immigrants, they look enough different that they are often easily distinguished.

So yeah, there's a large risk that we are creating an economically and socially weak class of citizens in these immigrants, a situation where extremist religion and crime is perhaps the only outlet for people with no other choice. I have no real solution, it is a difficult political problem. Extremist islam is not the reason for the problem, it is a symptom.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps, but slavery existed long before Christianity and in societies with no Christian presence.

True, but we were talking about white supremacy, the idea that being White makes you so superior that others can/should be enslaved for their benefit.  That is deeply rooted in Christianity.  And I'm also aware that the opposite is also true: Middle aged Christianity was used to fight against the idea of slavery, especially of owning christian slaves.  Same as Islam, really.

My point is that both religions are equally "evil", as "evil" as the men practicing it can be.

Christianity was the religion of slaves at the beginning.  It is the North American evangelical version of Christianity that has become fused with white nationalism.

[crazy canuck]

There's a point there. The recent muslim immigration to Sweden numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Almost 250000 Syrians alone and almost 150 000 Iraqis. That's out of a total population of 10 million.

2 million out of those 10 were born abroad. Finland, Poland and Iran ar the other on the top three list with 80 000 from Iran. In 2016 there were a million muslims and it has been increasing fast. They are also present everywhere, every little town and village took in refugees although they are mostly concentrated to the big cities.

Most of the immigrants not from muslim countries have been in Sweden for decades or are immigrants from other rich western countries.

A recent political discussion is imported labour. There's a shortage of dishwashers, cleaners and the like. Swedish companies hire abroad for very low pay low skill works whilst at the same time a lot of the recent immigrants are poor and unemployed.

And in addition to that it's often easy to spot the middle eastern immigrants, they look enough different that they are often easily distinguished.

So yeah, there's a large risk that we are creating an economically and socially weak class of citizens in these immigrants, a situation where extremist religion and crime is perhaps the only outlet for people with no other choice. I have no real solution, it is a difficult political problem. Extremist islam is not the reason for the problem, it is a symptom.

I agree with that, particularly the last paragraph.  We see the same thing happening in the US, except it is White Christian Nationalists rallying around far right theology and ideology.

[Threviel]

White christian nationalists are rarely socially and economically disadvantaged in the US.

I am really not following your apples to pears comparison. The situation is not alike in any sense.

And just to make clear, I am no way supporting OvBs unpleasant ramblings about muslims, I only agreed with the sentiment that the situation in Europe and the US are different.

[crazy canuck]

White christian nationalists are rarely socially and economically disadvantaged in the US.

I am really not following your apples to pears comparison. The situation is not alike in any sense.

And just to make clear, I am no way supporting OvBs unpleasant ramblings about muslims, I only agreed with the sentiment that the situation in Europe and the US are different.

I understand you are not agreeing with OvB.

On the Christian Nationalist issue, while it does include elites (read Republican politicians and wealthy ministers) I am not sure about it not including poor whites, particularly in the South - isn't that exactly who Trump was talking about when he said he loved the poorly educated?

[Eddie Teach]

Perhaps, but slavery existed long before Christianity and in societies with no Christian presence.

True, but we were talking about white supremacy, the idea that being White makes you so superior that others can/should be enslaved for their benefit.  That is deeply rooted in Christianity.  And I'm also aware that the opposite is also true: Middle aged Christianity was used to fight against the idea of slavery, especially of owning christian slaves.  Same as Islam, really.

My point is that both religions are equally "evil", as "evil" as the men practicing it can be.

Christianity was the religion of slaves at the beginning.  It is the North American evangelical version of Christianity that has become fused with white nationalism.

There are lots of non-white evangelicals.

[Valmy]

Indeed there are and there are huge numbers of them. They are just not a political force like the white ones....yet