QuoteMilitary stages coup in Myanmar, detains Aung San Suu Kyi
an hour ago
NAYPYITAW, Myanmar (AP) — Myanmar's military staged a coup Monday and detained senior politicians including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi — a sharp reversal of the significant, if uneven, progress toward democracy the Southeast Asian nation has made following five decades of military rule.
An announcement read on military-owned Myawaddy TV said Commander-in-Chief Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing would be in charge of the country for one year. It said the seizure was necessary because the government had not acted on the military's claims of fraud in November's elections — in which Suu Kyi's ruling party won a majority of the parliamentary seats up for grabs — and because it allowed the election to go ahead despite the coronavirus pandemic.
The takeover came the morning the country's new parliamentary session was to begin and follows days of concern that a coup was coming. The military maintains its actions are legally justified — citing a section of the constitution it drafted that allows it to take control in times of national emergency — though Suu Kyi's party spokesman as well as many international observers have said it amounts to a coup.
It was a dramatic backslide for Myanmar, which was emerging from decades of strict military rule and international isolation that began in 1962. It was also a shocking fall from power for Suu Kyi, a Nobel peace laureate who had lived under house arrest for years as she tried to push her country toward democracy and then became its de facto leader after her National League for Democracy won elections in 2015.
While Suu Kyi had been a fierce antagonist of the army while under house arrest, since her release and return to politics, she has had to work with the country's generals, who never fully gave up power. While the 75-year-old has remained wildly popular at home, Suu Kyi's deference to the generals — going so far as to defend their crackdown on Rohingya Muslims that the United States and others have labeled genocide — has left her reputation internationally in tatters.
For some, Monday's takeover was seen as confirmation that the military holds ultimate power despite the veneer of democracy. New York-based Human Rights Watch has previously described the clause in the constitution that the military invoked as a "coup mechanism in waiting."
The embarrassingly poor showing of the military-backed party in the November vote may have been the spark.
Larry Jagan, an independent analyst, said the takeover was just a "pretext for the military to reassert their full influence over the political infrastructure of the country and to determine the future, at least in the short term," adding that the generals do not want Suu Kyi to be a part of that future.
The coup now presents a test for the international community, which had ostracized Myanmar while it was under military rule and then enthusiastically embraced Suu Kyi's government as a sign the country was finally on the path to democracy. There will likely be calls for a reintroduction of at least some of the sanctions the country had long faced.
The first signs that the military was planning to seize power were reports that Suu Kyi and Win Myint, the country's president, had been detained before dawn.
Myo Nyunt, a spokesman for Suu Kyi's party, told the online news service The Irrawaddy that in addition to Suu Kyi and the president, members of the party's Central Executive Committee, many of its lawmakers and other senior leaders had also been taken into custody.
Television signals were cut across the country, as was phone and internet access in Naypyitaw, the capital, while passenger flights were grounded. Phone service in other parts of the country was also reported down, though people were still able to use the internet in many areas.
As word of the military's actions spread in Yangon, the country's biggest city, there was a growing sense of unease among residents who earlier in the day had packed into tea shops for breakfast and went about their morning shopping.
By midday, people were removing the bright red flags of Suu Kyi's party that once adorned their homes and businesses. Lines formed at ATMs as people waited to take out cash, efforts that were being complicated by internet disruptions. Workers at some businesses decided to go home.
Suu Kyi's party released a statement on one of its Facebook pages saying the military's actions were unjustified and went against the constitution and the will of voters. The statement urged people to oppose Monday's "coup" and any return to "military dictatorship." It was not possible to confirm who posted the message as party members were not answering phone calls.
The military's actions also received international condemnation and many countries called for the release of the detained leaders.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken expressed "grave concern and alarm" over the reported detentions.
"We call on Burmese military leaders to release all government officials and civil society leaders and respect the will of the people of Burma as expressed in democratic elections," he wrote in a statement, using Myanmar's former name.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the developments a "serious blow to democratic reforms," according to his spokesman.
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights said in a statement that, in addition to politicians, the people detained included human rights defenders, journalists and activists.
In addition to announcing that the commander in chief would be charge, the military TV report said Vice President Myint Swe would be elevated to acting president. Myint Swe is a former general best known for leading a brutal crackdown on Buddhist monks in 2007. He is a close ally of Than Shwe, the junta leader who ruled Myanmar for nearly two decades.
In a later announcement, the military said an election would be held in a year and the military would hand power to the winner.
The military justified its move by citing a clause in the 2008 constitution, implemented during military rule, that says in cases of national emergency, the government's executive, legislative and judicial powers can be handed to the military commander-in-chief.
It is just one of many parts of the charter that ensured the military could maintain ultimate control over the country. The military is allowed to appoint its members to 25% of seats in Parliament and it controls of several key ministries involved in security and defense.
In November polls, Suu Kyi's party captured 396 out of 476 seats up for actual election in the lower and upper houses of Parliament.
The military has charged that there was massive fraud in the election — particularly with regard to voter lists — though it has not offered any convincing evidence. The state Union Election Commission last week rejected its allegations.
Concerns of a takeover grew last week when a military spokesman declined to rule out the possibility of a coup when asked by a reporter to do so at a news conference on Tuesday.
Then on Wednesday, the military chief told senior officers in a speech that the constitution could be revoked if the laws were not being properly enforced. An unusual deployment of armored vehicles in the streets of several large cities also stoked fears.
On Saturday and Sunday, however, the military denied it had threatened a coup, accusing unnamed organizations and media of misrepresenting its position.
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-coup-aung-san-suu-kyi-dda3d013897e14d5d0bd44d19eac9cd1
So heartwarming to see the American talking points exported to where they would be most productive.
This is the first time I've read that Suu Kyi's cheerleading for genocide was actually out of deference to the generals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
This is the first time I've read that Suu Kyi's cheerleading for genocide was actually out of deference to the generals.
No I've heard that. Her position was always rather precarious (see above) and she didn't want to antagonize them on the Rohingya issue.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2021, 12:30:49 PM
No I've heard that. Her position was always rather precarious (see above) and she didn't want to antagonize them on the Rohingya issue.
I've read that it was because the genocide is popular with the people.
I have no idea how one would go about choosing between these theses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2021, 12:38:29 PM
I've read that it was because the genocide is popular with the people.
I have no idea how one would go about choosing between these theses.
How many leaders have the people chosen v how many leaders have the generals chosen? Who would you want to placate?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2021, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2021, 12:30:49 PM
No I've heard that. Her position was always rather precarious (see above) and she didn't want to antagonize them on the Rohingya issue.
I've read that it was because the genocide is popular with the people.
I have no idea how one would go about choosing between these theses.
Wait a sec. The Rohingya genocide was carried out by the military. It may have also been popular.
But you're using that as a reason why you don't know who to choose between?
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2021, 02:36:35 PM
Wait a sec. The Rohingya genocide was carried out by the military. It may have also been popular.
But you're using that as a reason why you don't know who to choose between?
Theses are not people Beeb. :contract:
I don't know how one can determine if Suu Kyi was swayed by desire to placate the masses or placate the generals.
Or maybe she really hates Muslims.
Extraordinary and it feels very of the moment:
https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1356315137976672259?s=20
QuoteAditya Raj Kaul
@AdityaRajKaul
A woman did her regular aerobics class out in open without realizing that a coup was taking place in #Myanmar. A Military convoy reaching the parliament can be seen behind the woman as she performs aerobics. Incredible!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2021, 12:25:23 PM
This is the first time I've read that Suu Kyi's cheerleading for genocide was actually out of deference to the generals.
You probably need to broaden the things you read.
When you have a lion in your house, you need to throw it a piece of meat once in a while. The Royangas were that piece, sadly.
In the end it wasn't enough. The lion still ate her.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 01, 2021, 06:19:32 PM
When you have a lion in your house, you need to throw it a piece of meat once in a while. The Royangas were that piece, sadly.
In the end it wasn't enough. The lion still ate her.
A political necessity isn't automatically right morally.
Quote from: Tamas on February 01, 2021, 07:30:06 PM
A political necessity isn't automatically right morally.
Oh no - it's morally wrong. What's happened to the Rohingya is terrible and has had too little attention paid to it.
The political context (which I know nothing about) can explain how something happens, because it's very rare that someone in power is just an evil psychopath, but it doesn't it excuse.
So is she back in some people's 'good books'?
Her not lifting a figure to help the Rohingya and her mealy words at the time, were active support for an enfolding genocide; she can go hang as far as I'm concerned.
IIRC wasn't her father a assassinated early post-war general? She probably developed her obvious Buddhist nationalism in large part from that up bringing. Her later saintly pro-democracy campaign now looks more like a suitable veneer.
Quote from: mongers on February 01, 2021, 09:13:05 PM
So is she back in some people's 'good books'?
Her not lifting a figure to help the Rohingya and her mealy words at the time, were active support for an enfolding genocide; she can go hang as far as I'm concerned.
IIRC wasn't her father a assassinated early post-war general? She probably developed her obvious Buddhist nationalism in large part from that up bringing. Her later saintly pro-democracy campaign now looks more like a suitable veneer.
He was a "freedom fighter" during WWII in favour of Burmese independence. He's as morally ambiguous as many of those types but to call him a "general" really wouldn't be accurate.
He was a Japanese collabo, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2021, 11:07:20 PM
He was a Japanese collabo, no?
To achieve independence, before switching sides.
Mind you, the collabo stuff, to Brits in this matter, is what I hear sometimes from (East) Asians regarding the Rohingya.
Quote from: mongers on February 01, 2021, 09:13:05 PM
So is she back in some people's 'good books'?
Her not lifting a figure to help the Rohingya and her mealy words at the time, were active support for an enfolding genocide; she can go hang as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think she's back in anyone's good books.
QuoteHe was a Japanese collabo, no?
That's not too surprising given British imperialism - or an issue for many people in colonised countries. I know that Bose and the Indian National Army are seen as heroic figures in the Indian independence movement.
QuoteMind you, the collabo stuff, to Brits in this matter, is what I hear sometimes from (East) Asians regarding the Rohingya.
That is something the British did across the empire.
More than not being back in anyone's "good books" I think we should probably have given a more critical eye to international fawning over Suu Kyi way back in the beginning. I think her life story suggests like many of these unstable political systems in Southeast Asia, the idea of simplistic "good guys and bad guys" is not usually the best way to look at the situation. She was advocating for democracy in part because it was her path to power, but how much she ever really believed in what we in the West view as "appropriate liberal democracy" is an open question. Just because her enemies are bad dudes doesn't mean she was ever actually a benign figure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55901774?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55901774?__twitter_impression=true)
Dance dance counter-revolution
If she had been more critical of the military situation against the minority Muslims in Burma, then her reputation would have been better worldwide and it's probablee that the military would have been much more hesitant to move against her now or even do a coup. Her real strength was from her international supporters more than the opposition to the military she had domestically.
Quote from: PJL on February 02, 2021, 12:41:05 PM
If she had been more critical of the military situation against the minority Muslims in Burma, then her reputation would have been better worldwide and it's probablee that the military would have been much more hesitant to move against her now or even do a coup. Her real strength was from her international supporters more than the opposition to the military she had domestically.
No, her real strength was the support from the people of Burma, who in an election in November gave her party over 80% of the seats.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: PJL on February 02, 2021, 12:41:05 PM
If she had been more critical of the military situation against the minority Muslims in Burma, then her reputation would have been better worldwide and it's probablee that the military would have been much more hesitant to move against her now or even do a coup. Her real strength was from her international supporters more than the opposition to the military she had domestically.
No, her real strength was the support from the people of Burma, who in an election in November gave her party over 80% of the seats.
How's that strength working out for her? Myanmar military has a lot of experience maintaining power in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval. It's the international sanctions that give them pause.
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2021, 02:00:51 PM
How's that strength working out for her? Myanmar military has a lot of experience maintaining power in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval. It's the international sanctions that give them pause.
Really? The junta's more or less since independence except for the 2010s. I don't think sanctions or international isolation has ever been a major issue for them.
I believe China's patronage makes sanctions pretty toothless.
Why did they let her out of the dungeon in the first place then? Did they want to take a break from mismanaging the country for a while?
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2021, 02:13:12 PM
Why did they let her out of the dungeon in the first place then? Did they want to take a break from mismanaging the country for a while?
From memory I think it was a huge surprise when it happened. The military wrote the constitution and had a great deal of residual influence (I think they had a number of seats in parliament for example). Possibly their role was under threat because of how big her majority was?
But yeah from memory democratisation was a surprise and I don't remember many people being able to explain it and I think there's something similar going on now. This is a surprise (to an extent) and it's not clear why it happened now.
QuoteI believe China's patronage makes sanctions pretty toothless.
I think India too.
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2021, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: PJL on February 02, 2021, 12:41:05 PM
If she had been more critical of the military situation against the minority Muslims in Burma, then her reputation would have been better worldwide and it's probablee that the military would have been much more hesitant to move against her now or even do a coup. Her real strength was from her international supporters more than the opposition to the military she had domestically.
No, her real strength was the support from the people of Burma, who in an election in November gave her party over 80% of the seats.
How's that strength working out for her? Myanmar military has a lot of experience maintaining power in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval. It's the international sanctions that give them pause.
sanctions are all fun and all that but their track record of getting rid of regimes that are really determined to stay in place isn't that great afaik
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 02, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
sanctions are all fun and all that but their track record of getting rid of regimes that are really determined to stay in place isn't that great afaik
Sanctions aren't really the proper tool for regime change. They're more useful if you're trying to induce a change in policy from an existing government. There they have had mild to moderate success.
South Africa is the obvious success story.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 02, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
sanctions are all fun and all that but their track record of getting rid of regimes that are really determined to stay in place isn't that great afaik
Sanctions aren't really the proper tool for regime change. They're more useful if you're trying to induce a change in policy from an existing government. There they have had mild to moderate success.
Yeah, sadly so far the only proven tool for regime change is the M1A2. And it tends to make things messier.
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2021, 02:13:12 PM
Why did they let her out of the dungeon in the first place then? Did they want to take a break from mismanaging the country for a while?
Because the military never really lost their influence. They were in her cabinet and in government. The folks that were not hearing the military pulling the strings when she made public pronouncements justifying the genocide were not paying much attention. But that changed when she won such a landslide victory recently, now the military influence was threatened, and they reacted.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 02, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
sanctions are all fun and all that but their track record of getting rid of regimes that are really determined to stay in place isn't that great afaik
Sanctions aren't really the proper tool for regime change. They're more useful if you're trying to induce a change in policy from an existing government. There they have had mild to moderate success.
I've been noticing that it seems we're trending against sanctioning entire nations, but and more and more targeting individuals in the government we don't like with sanctions. I think that is a bad trend towards impotency.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 02, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
sanctions are all fun and all that but their track record of getting rid of regimes that are really determined to stay in place isn't that great afaik
Sanctions aren't really the proper tool for regime change. They're more useful if you're trying to induce a change in policy from an existing government. There they have had mild to moderate success.
If only somebody would tell our government that. We put countries in sanctions jail and throw away the key with little foreign policy achievements to show for it.
Yeah, the junta could go forever in the face of the pre-Democratization sanctions. They have proven that, and they receive enough formal patronage from Beijing that that is all but assured. Most likely if I had to guess, the junta recognize there is some benefit to modernization and integration with the broader global economy. Lots of autocrats have recognized that all over the world, and they try to find ways to become internationally normed for economic reasons while holding onto power domestically. Lots of autocrats are unable to walk this tight rope, and they "lose control" of increased openness and connectivity with the international community and eventually end up ousted. The PRC is a good example of an autocracy that has managed it well, as is Saudi Arabia at least so far. Iran has tried to manage it well and failed, but they have made sure to fail on the side of "crackdowns and repression", so while their attempts at international normalization fail they hold on to power. I think the Myanmar junta is basically on that timeline right now, they experimented a bit, didn't like the evidence emerging that democracy could become a genuine threat to their power, so they are cracking back down. Just like the Iranian Mullahs they fully understand this will mean increased sanctions and new international ties being severed.
Maybe they'll try again down the road.
I think the West kinda misunderstands the Rohingya issue, for one--we should be glad to see Muslims repressed, Islam is the #1 evil in the world and no country should want a large number of Muslims living in it. For two, the will of the people was anti-Rohingya, this isn't a case of an evil military going after Muslims that the rest of the population loves. Most Burmese hate the Rohingya, I suspect Suu Kyi does as well. I don't think that anything more than that needs to be understood to explain support for going after them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
I think the West kinda misunderstands the Rohingya issue, for one--we should be glad to see Muslims repressed, Islam is the #1 evil in the world and no country should want a large number of Muslims living in it. For two, the will of the people was anti-Rohingya, this isn't a case of an evil military going after Muslims that the rest of the population loves. Most Burmese hate the Rohingya, I suspect Suu Kyi does as well. I don't think that anything more than that needs to be understood to explain support for going after them.
I've never wanted to misunderstand anything more.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
I think the West kinda misunderstands the Rohingya issue, for one--we should be glad to see Muslims repressed, Islam is the #1 evil in the world and no country should want a large number of Muslims living in it. For two, the will of the people was anti-Rohingya, this isn't a case of an evil military going after Muslims that the rest of the population loves. Most Burmese hate the Rohingya, I suspect Suu Kyi does as well. I don't think that anything more than that needs to be understood to explain support for going after them.
It is good for people to be reminded there are people like you out there in the world.
Maybe for people in your bubble...
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 03, 2021, 04:04:45 PM
Maybe for people in your bubble...
Too true. There are no people like that in the group I generally associate with. If that is not true for you, I am sorry for the conditions in which you live.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2021, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 03, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
I think the West kinda misunderstands the Rohingya issue, for one--we should be glad to see Muslims repressed, Islam is the #1 evil in the world and no country should want a large number of Muslims living in it. For two, the will of the people was anti-Rohingya, this isn't a case of an evil military going after Muslims that the rest of the population loves. Most Burmese hate the Rohingya, I suspect Suu Kyi does as well. I don't think that anything more than that needs to be understood to explain support for going after them.
It is good for people to be reminded there are people like you out there in the world.
While I like to think that this kind of thinking is slowly dying out, it's not happening near fast enough.
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
If the Arab world by divine intervention went Buddhist tomorrow it would still be a despotic shithole. If islamic immigrants in the west went atheist tomorrow they would still be poor, uneducated and marginalized. And so on and so forth...
It's just a religion, nothing more, nothing less. The problems are many, but islam in and of itself is not one of them
I don't know, I think the generals have probably done the right thing here. This is dangerous stuff:
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-charges-aung-san-suu-kyi-6884aae25bac2dbf952a8cc0447c83fc
QuoteYANGON, Myanmar (AP) — Myanmar authorities charged the country's deposed leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, with possessing illegally imported walkie-talkies, her allies said Wednesday, a move that gives the generals who overthrew her legal grounds to detain her for two weeks.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
Take this drivel back to 4chan
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
(https://cdn.s3-media.wbal.com/Media/2017/07/12/f473a5d9-76f6-459c-b0fd-0a1ee8a66998/original.jpg)
Wait a minute. Isn't OvB the one running this place? Should we really respond as he deserves?
Edit: No, that's BvS. Carry on.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 04, 2021, 11:51:53 AM
I don't know, I think the generals have probably done the right thing here. This is dangerous stuff:
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-charges-aung-san-suu-kyi-6884aae25bac2dbf952a8cc0447c83fc
QuoteYANGON, Myanmar (AP) — Myanmar authorities charged the country's deposed leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, with possessing illegally imported walkie-talkies, her allies said Wednesday, a move that gives the generals who overthrew her legal grounds to detain her for two weeks.
Sometimes I think this kind of thing is a mocking power move. It's sort of like "yeah, we both know it's silly, feel free to rage impotently about it". Another example is Navalny being jailed for being too comatose to meet his parole obligations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
Take this drivel back to 4chan
but has he said anything untrue when it comes to the ideology?
as opposed to what he said about the people (remember, most Germans between 1930-1945 were also not bad people, same for the Russians between 17 and 91, etc etc)
Even if Islam was a toxic ideology that needs to be opposed, the way you do that is empower opposition ideas and protect people becoming apostates. You don't do it by persecuting them, religions in particular tend to perversely thrive on it. And especially in this case we are talking about some obscure minority in a rather insular country. I don't think them suffering whatever they are suffering in Myanmar is going to help reduce toxic ideas out there in the world. That is kind of ridiculous.
If you thought Christianity was some big toxic ideology in 14th century I don't think Tamerlane's systematic annihilation of the Nestorians did much to slow its spread.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2021, 01:42:00 PM
If you thought Christianity was some big toxic ideology in 14th century I don't think Tamerlane's systematic annihilation of the Nestorians did much to slow its spread.
Christianity is still a toxic ideology :sleep:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 04, 2021, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
Take this drivel back to 4chan
but has he said anything untrue when it comes to the ideology?
as opposed to what he said about the people (remember, most Germans between 1930-1945 were also not bad people, same for the Russians between 17 and 91, etc etc)
You can also go back to 4chan.
Freedom of religion does not only apply to religions you approve of.
CC, are you bigoted against weebs? :hmm:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2021, 04:16:35 PM
CC, are you bigoted against weebs? :hmm:
If a weeb means a person who believes that wanting Islam out of our communities of ok, no I am not bigoted against them. I am diametrically opposed.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 04, 2021, 02:56:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2021, 01:42:00 PM
If you thought Christianity was some big toxic ideology in 14th century I don't think Tamerlane's systematic annihilation of the Nestorians did much to slow its spread.
Christianity is still a toxic ideology :sleep:
If you think so you would know persecuting them is the exact wrong way of dealing with them. They thrive on that.
I mean look at Poland. The Communists worked very hard to weaken the church and by the time the Soviet Bloc collapsed it was probably the most Catholic country in the world, even the Vatican was intimidated.
Muslim apologists, just like Christian apologists, love using persecution of Muslims to give Islam a noble brand and make it more popular and stronger. What is happening in Myanmar is going to only make Islam stronger, just as what happened in Poland.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 04:19:21 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2021, 04:16:35 PM
CC, are you bigoted against weebs? :hmm:
If a weeb means a person who believes that wanting Islam out of our communities of ok, no I am not bigoted against them. I am diametrically opposed.
You know 4chan is not a website about figuring out how to get Islam out of communities right? It is a fandom website.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2021, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 04:19:21 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2021, 04:16:35 PM
CC, are you bigoted against weebs? :hmm:
If a weeb means a person who believes that wanting Islam out of our communities of ok, no I am not bigoted against them. I am diametrically opposed.
You know 4chan is not a website about figuring out how to get Islam out of communities right? It is a fandom website.
I confess the most I know about 4chan is that it is inhabited, in part, by white nationalist idiots.
It's meant for Japanese fanboys. Naturally there is some overlap.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2021, 05:03:36 PM
It's meant for Japanese fanboys. Naturally there is some overlap.
It is a weird combination isn't it?
"I prefer the culture of this East Asian nation to my own...and I also OPPOSE EVERYTHING FOREIGN!!11"
Cognitive dissonance is such a fascinating thing.
CC, 8chan is the one you are looking to send Ovb back to.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
How is Islam a more toxic, more dangerous ideology than Christianity which gave us QAnon and White Supremacism?
Viper, I'm gonna need you to connect those dots for me.
Yeah, I don't think you can remove Christianity and get rid of White Supremacism. They would just embrace *insert religion* that to them represents "traditional white values" instead.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 03:17:26 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 04, 2021, 01:27:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 04, 2021, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 04, 2021, 09:24:50 AM
You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Islam is a toxic, dangerous ideology. Wanting Islam out of our communities is no different than wanting Nazism, QAnon, etc out of our communities. It's long past time we stop pretending ideologies of hate and destruction somehow are only valid targets of opprobrium when they are niche views held by a few deplorable white people. It is quite the case that such ideologies are just as terrible when they're held by a billion mostly brown people.
Take this drivel back to 4chan
but has he said anything untrue when it comes to the ideology?
as opposed to what he said about the people (remember, most Germans between 1930-1945 were also not bad people, same for the Russians between 17 and 91, etc etc)
You can also go back to 4chan.
Freedom of religion does not only apply to religions you approve of.
I'll go where I please.
What you need to accept is that religion is not special and does not deserve any special treatment. It is just an idea. A human construct.
And these constructs don't get a free pass because they pose as a religion.
as for freedom of religion: freedom of speech and freedom of assembly should cover it sufficiently. These allow you to have your ideologically inclined get-togethers, they allow you to spread the word, to print your message in a book... and they make sure you don't get to spread shit around like 'kill all the jewish, kafir, capitalist, gay, brown, white, red, yellow, spectacle-wearing, ... people.
No special rules needed that make religion more important than non-religion.
Quote from: Valmy
Even if Islam was a toxic ideology that needs to be opposed, the way you do that is empower opposition ideas and protect people becoming apostates. You don't do it by persecuting them, religions in particular tend to perversely thrive on it. And especially in this case we are talking about some obscure minority in a rather insular country. I don't think them suffering whatever they are suffering in Myanmar is going to help reduce toxic ideas out there in the world. That is kind of ridiculous.
If you thought Christianity was some big toxic ideology in 14th century I don't think Tamerlane's systematic annihilation of the Nestorians did much to slow its spread.
Of course islam is toxic.
And the way to get rid of is indeed through making sure that people can leave without having to fear for their lives, not through genocide (be that by killing like in Burma or via 'chinese reeducation'). Some of the hard-to-confirm news out of Iran seems to be indicating a positive trend in that regards (going apostate, not the fearing for their lives, sadly. Something that was indicated by my old professor of Iranian archeology 20 years ago).
Empowering apostacy in the region themselves: not too much we can do directly but continuing to hammer on that right. But there's more we can do for those in the west that have left the religion or want to leave the religion. And this is to stop pandering to islam, to stop labeling everything as islamophobia or other terms designed to shield the ideology from any and all forms of opposition. Pandering only empowers the most radical.
Just like all the pandering of the GOP to the religious only empowers the reactionaries, ultra-religious and other assorted crazies. To use that obvious example.
As for christianity... If you look at the world as a whole: it's still pretty damn toxic, just like all the other ideologies. The fact that it seems less so in Western Europe is because liberals, socialists (who weren't necessarily democratic) and progressives pushed back against the overwhelming influence christianity had. And that was a fight that wasn't always played nice. A lot of what was said or published then could be labelled as christianophobia, to use the popular phobia theme.
Odd that these same groups are now unwilling to do the same when it comes to islam. Are these people -who are indeed generally immigrants- not worthy of being freed from the yoke?
Anyways, back to Burma and it's coup I guess.
Another bigwig of the deposed government has been arrested last I heard
Well, yes. Religion needs to not get special treatment.
Still does not make islam itself toxic (any more than most other religions I mean), that's two different issues. And it certainly does not mean that muslims deserve persecution just because they are muslims.
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:12:33 AM
Still does not make islam itself toxic (any more than most other religions I mean), that's two different issues.
No other religion (Judaism might be an exception, not sure) has a divinely inspired death penalty for apostasy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:41:41 AM
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:12:33 AM
Still does not make islam itself toxic (any more than most other religions I mean), that's two different issues.
No other religion (Judaism might be an exception, not sure) has a divinely inspired death penalty for apostasy.
All religions have silly stuff going on. Stoning for adultery in christianity and judaism for example. It's a series of beliefs created by people having a magical pretend friend telling them stuff, of course it's going to be full och all kinds of weird shit.
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:50:15 AM
All religions have silly stuff going on. Stoning for adultery in christianity and judaism for example. It's a series of beliefs created by people having a magical pretend friend telling them stuff, of course it's going to be full och all kinds of weird shit.
Jesus protected a woman who was going to be stoned. Mohammed told people God said they should kill people who leave Islam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:50:15 AM
All religions have silly stuff going on. Stoning for adultery in christianity and judaism for example. It's a series of beliefs created by people having a magical pretend friend telling them stuff, of course it's going to be full och all kinds of weird shit.
Jesus protected a woman who was going to be stoned.
Didn't know he was anti-weed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:53:41 AM
Jesus protected a woman who was going to be stoned. Mohammed told people God said they should kill people who leave Islam.
What about the parable where people who reject Christ ("those enemies" who did not want him to be king over them) should be brought in front of him and slaughtered? I mean that was a huge part in the justification for pogroms and expelling Jews, for parts of colonisation in the Americas (Americans had no contact with Jerusalem so hadn't "rejected" Christ - the good "Christian" thing was to convert them, but if they rejected Christ then they're fair game), slavery in Africa (unlike Americans they were viewed as having rejected Christ so fair game) and the Crusades.
And of course the Christian view of apostates specifically wasn't that different it was about separation from the community (if your right eye fails you, gouge it and throw it away for it is better to lose one body part than for your whole body to fall into hell - which is repeated two or three times in different Gospels). Lucifer is the classic apostate because it isn't just a falling away in faith but a continued rotting presence in the community. All of this is very similar to what you see in the Quran about apostates. People are always super slippery about "Mohammed said" when there is a big difference between Quran and hadith - in the Quran it's just separation followed by punishment in hell (which isn't for eternity in Islam) just as it is in the Bible.
I think this is all nonsense. Islam is as any other religion and should be treated the same. And the discourse around Islam and the far too common move from condemnation of violent Islamism to Islam and Muslims in general, especially in the West, has helped sort of embolden regimes like Russia, China, Myanmar in human rights abuses and the sort of erosion of Muslim civil liberties through anti-Muslim nationalism we see in India.
I don't get the comparison between Russia, China and Myanmar regarding muslims. Putin is actually pretty cozy with them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2021, 09:36:09 AM
I think this is all nonsense. Islam is as any other religion and should be treated the same. And the discourse around Islam and the far too common move from condemnation of violent Islamism to Islam and Muslims in general, especially in the West, has helped sort of embolden regimes like Russia, China, Myanmar in human rights abuses and the sort of erosion of Muslim civil liberties through anti-Muslim nationalism we see in India.
Hear, hear!
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2021, 09:36:09 AM
What about the parable where people who reject Christ ("those enemies" who did not want him to be king over them) should be brought in front of him and slaughtered?
Dang, this verse is totally new to me. I withdraw my objection and will amend my thinking.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 05, 2021, 09:38:57 AM
I don't get the comparison between Russia, China and Myanmar regarding muslims. Putin is actually pretty cozy with them.
They're on very different scales - but I think Russia definitely took advantage of Western indifference (after 9/11) during the Second Chechen War. At the minute the Russian state works with certain Muslim leaders and tolerates "traditional Russian Islam" but that is defined by the Russian state, not Muslims and deviation from that, even on quite a minor level, is perceived as a risk/extremist. And, as you'd expect, the state has quite a lot of police powers etc against "extremists".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2021, 09:36:09 AM
What about the parable where people who reject Christ ("those enemies" who did not want him to be king over them) should be brought in front of him and slaughtered?
Dang, this verse is totally new to me. I withdraw my objection and will amend my thinking.
It's now very much seen as part of the Second Coming and analysed in a very different way. Historically it's the theological justification for a lot of violence against people who were perceived to have the opportunity to become Christian, but reject that - especially Jews.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2021, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 05, 2021, 09:38:57 AM
I don't get the comparison between Russia, China and Myanmar regarding muslims. Putin is actually pretty cozy with them.
They're on very different scales - but I think Russia definitely took advantage of Western indifference (after 9/11) during the Second Chechen War. At the minute the Russian state works with certain Muslim leaders and tolerates "traditional Russian Islam" but that is defined by the Russian state, not Muslims and deviation from that, even on quite a minor level, is perceived as a risk/extremist. And, as you'd expect, the state has quite a lot of police powers etc against "extremists".
Islam is second only to Orthodoxy in Russia, and muslim religious bodies have lots of influence, unlike what Le Pen and co. may say.
Street prayer is even legal in Moscow, in some places. Putin has subsidized mosques and islamic schools, saying Orthodoxy and Islam based on fundamental identical humanistic values. It could explain why humanism never took off I guess.
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-pledges-support-islamic-schools-russia-791561 (http://www.newsweek.com/putin-pledges-support-islamic-schools-russia-791561)
Quote"Traditional Islam is an integral part of the Russian cultural code
QuoteOrthodox Christianity and Islam are based on identical humanistic values, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his address to the participants in the conference titled "Orthodoxy and Islam — Religions of Peace," which is being held in Bishkek on Thursday.
https://tass.com/politics/1091369
Last one, duly noted by Ukrainians emphasizing this remark, not so publicized abroad
https://risu.ua/en/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy-closer-to-islam-than-catholicism-is_n43445 (https://risu.ua/en/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy-closer-to-islam-than-catholicism-is_n43445)
So wrong example IMO, and even during the Chechen Wars they made sure to blame Wahhabism and not Islam.
Nonetheless, Chechnya "enjoys" a de facto Sharia under the "enlightened" Kadyrov. :P
Mind you, the islam question is also linked to Central Asian or just muslim immigration in general, which for instance Navalny is not too fond of, if I am to believe a chagrined Lemonde.fr.
Russians I know (yes anecdotal evidence I know), even the Pro-Putin one, are not too fond of this pro-islamic stuff, if fatalistic about it "mosques or war".
Through selective reading of passages you like both Quran and Bible can either make a case for peace and brotherhood between everyone or discriminating against and killing those who disagree with you. Extremist or backwards Christian sects are just as worrisome to me as their Muslim counterparts. I think culture plays a significant role, possibly more than religion. I feel there's similar views on gender roles, homosexuality, foreigners etc. between Christian conservative communities living in the rural Alps and Muslims living in Eastern Anatolia and that their views are more alike than they are to their counterparts in Vienna or Istanbul.
It's almost like the problems are social and economical inequalities rather than religion. :hmm:
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 09:56:21 AM
It's almost like the problems are social and economical inequalities rather than religion. :hmm:
:o
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2021, 09:51:43 AM
Through selective reading of passages you like both Quran and Bible can either make a case for peace and brotherhood between everyone or discriminating against and killing those who disagree with you. Extremist or backwards Christian sects are just as worrisome to me as their Muslim counterparts. I think culture plays a significant role, possibly more than religion. I feel there's similar views on gender roles, homosexuality, foreigners etc. between Christian conservative communities living in the rural Alps and Muslims living in Eastern Anatolia and that their views are more alike than they are to their counterparts in Vienna or Istanbul.
And not even real culture.
I've said before that I struggle with the way some attacks by individuals become "terrorist" attacks when they say "Allah akbar" - that's enough, even though the attacks themselves emotionally - for me - feel more like school shooters than a terrorist attack. And if you look at these individuals it's the same sort of online culture that they're operating in as some school shooters have or some far-right extremists.
I feel like "terrorism" glamourises it and I don't mean to take that even further - but I think there needs to be some network, some other people involved for something to be "terrorist". And actually the sort of radicalising young man online is something slightly different than a terrorist, whether that online "lone wolf" hates non-Muslims, women, gays, non-whites, Jews or whatever else. I almost feel like in viewing it through a terrorist lense we're missing the bigger picture and the real radicalisation that happened which is a very similar online culture.
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2021, 09:51:43 AM
Through selective reading of passages you like both Quran and Bible can either make a case for peace and brotherhood between everyone or discriminating against and killing those who disagree with you. Extremist or backwards Christian sects are just as worrisome to me as their Muslim counterparts. I think culture plays a significant role, possibly more than religion. I feel there's similar views on gender roles, homosexuality, foreigners etc. between Christian conservative communities living in the rural Alps and Muslims living in Eastern Anatolia and that their views are more alike than they are to their counterparts in Vienna or Istanbul.
That's why Turkish-origin people al-Quran thumpers for instance vote for the useful idiot Left in Europe and Erdogan in Turkey. :yes:
Nice whataboutism though. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 05, 2021, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2021, 09:51:43 AM
Through selective reading of passages you like both Quran and Bible can either make a case for peace and brotherhood between everyone or discriminating against and killing those who disagree with you. Extremist or backwards Christian sects are just as worrisome to me as their Muslim counterparts. I think culture plays a significant role, possibly more than religion. I feel there's similar views on gender roles, homosexuality, foreigners etc. between Christian conservative communities living in the rural Alps and Muslims living in Eastern Anatolia and that their views are more alike than they are to their counterparts in Vienna or Istanbul.
That's why Turkish-origin people al-Quran thumpers for instance vote for the useful idiot Left in Europe and Erdogan in Turkey. :yes:
Nice whataboutism though. :P
Not seeing the whataboutism.
Whataboutism is when there's calling out of right wing bigotry, and the knee jerk reaction is "but Antifa/the left!"
I don't argue "but Christians!" in response to tarring all of Islam with one brush, but that the problem is NOT Islam but people with a radical agenda using it as an excuse for their actions (which is similar in other religions).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:50:15 AM
All religions have silly stuff going on. Stoning for adultery in christianity and judaism for example. It's a series of beliefs created by people having a magical pretend friend telling them stuff, of course it's going to be full och all kinds of weird shit.
Jesus protected a woman who was going to be stoned. Mohammed told people God said they should kill people who leave Islam.
Mohammed said no such thing (in fact, the Quran is explicit that there cannot be compulsion in religion). Hundreds of years later, people started claiming that Muhammed said that apostates should be killed, but that's not a fundamental tenet s Islam as expressed in the Quran, and the hadiths regarding it are controversial.
I believe that every modern law criminalizing apostacy is in the Islamic world, but apostacy is not criminalized in all Muslim countries.
Around here, the violent anti-semitism, up to murder, and anti-homo attacks are now a province of the al-Quran thumpers, trying to atone for their sins perhaps, while it was previously the far-right.
See also the migration of Jews out the banlieues to the city centres, even those in very conservative catholic neighborhood for the wealthiest, or even Israel for those who cannot.
During the debate around homosexual marriage, even the victim of a violent assault made sure not to mention the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators while blaming the climate around anti-homosexual marriage (la manif' pour tous), described by the mainstream left-wing media as very conservative/reactionary catholic bourgeois.
The perpetrators were Taieb K. et Abdelmalik M., names untypical of French Catholic grande bourgeoisie.
https://www.dailymotion.com/cdn/manifest/video/xyvsgm.m3u8?sec=yhuF0Hh3rq1P-nB5JntTuXUAweVlrw8kT-94YGx4Ns6wvbU3HU9RrjasjEHZqfE7blH5jYMX8R-TOEm-wBe_Wg&progressive=1 (https://www.dailymotion.com/cdn/manifest/video/xyvsgm.m3u8?sec=yhuF0Hh3rq1P-nB5JntTuXUAweVlrw8kT-94YGx4Ns6wvbU3HU9RrjasjEHZqfE7blH5jYMX8R-TOEm-wBe_Wg&progressive=1)
https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/06/03/prison-ferme-pour-deux-des-agresseurs-d-un-couple-gay_1032056/ (https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2014/06/03/prison-ferme-pour-deux-des-agresseurs-d-un-couple-gay_1032056/)
French links only, but the victim was Dutch.
So colour me skeptical. In the US, things may be different, but not in Western Europe, the part with large muslim communities I mean. Obviously, the situation is nowhere near as bad in Portugal.
As for catholicism vs Islam, some Vatican II aggiornamento is sorely needed for Islam, though unlikely to come given how Islam is structured or rather unstructured.
Mainstream Lutheranism does not seem dangerous to me, as well.
It's far from perfect here but I'd probably separate out the UK from that Western Europe description. Things seem particularly bad in France in a way that I just don't recognise in the UK very much.
I think cross-community relations and attitudes are better than they've previously been. As I say there are issues but it's different. I think there is an Anglo-Saxon v Continental Europe element to this. I've mentioned before that things that are mainstream politics in much of Europe such as burka bans or hijab restrictions, or banning halal are very alien in the UK. They are policies that Nigel Farage has said are too far-right.
There are still lots of issues but I think we are more exposed and influenced by American attitudes to this (and posisbly other discourse around minorities and race)?
Banning hallal is far from mainstream, not just in France. Nobody cares much about halal slaughtering around here. For some reason, the vegan crusaders carefully avoid any ritual slaughtering criticism, unlike slaughtering in general. Only Slovenia has an outright ritual slaughter ban, with countries in red not even requiring stunning. The others requiring possibly some stunning after the cut.
As a matter of fact, matança do porco in Iberia or France is halal-style.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Legal_requirements_for_ritual_slaughter_in_Europe_2018.png/1024px-Legal_requirements_for_ritual_slaughter_in_Europe_2018.png)
Accurate enough wiki, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter)
As for importing US Identity Politics, no problem in leaving that to the Brits. What Nigel Farage says can vary a lot, depending on necessity and his record on Europeans, namely Central and East, does not make him a reference. :P
Burka bans were discussed in the early 2010s over here but that talk has (fortunately) died out, and some low-level bans were eventually struck down by the courts. I really don't feel comfortable with the state telling people what not to wear, as much as I can personally disapprove of the role of the burka/nicab.
Burqas are also banned in Morocco and Tunisia.
Quote from: celedhring on February 05, 2021, 12:53:45 PM
Burka bans were discussed in the early 2010s over here but that talk has (fortunately) died out, and some low-level bans were eventually struck down by the courts. I really don't feel comfortable with the state telling people what not to wear, as much as I can personally disapprove of the role of the burka/nicab.
Agreed.
But I think if combine Duque's map above and the one in this wiki (which I assume is reasonably accurate):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dress_in_Europe
Almost every one of the EU15 except Portugal, the UK and Ireland have policies directed at Muslims that would, in the politics of the UK be considered far-right and beyond the pale - incidentally that's why I think Farage's take is interesting (he did support a burka ban in the 2000s but doesn't any more) because I think he is very good at identifying the sort of furthest right you can get while retaining some plausible deniability. It's why I'd just want to carve out that the the UK might not be in the same "Western European" boat on this in terms of contrasts with the US.
As I say - we're not perfect but I think it is a distinction.
Yeah, and Jean-Marie Le Pen was not against the tchador (Iranian version of hijab) per se, because the greatest danger is the one you cannot see. :D
QuotePourtant, le 10 octobre 2003, lors d'un forum du Front national de la jeunesse, Jean-Marie Le Pen s'était déclaré «ferme partisan du port du tchador dans la rue» parce qu'il «n'y a pas de plus grand danger que ce qu'on ne voit pas».
«Là, au moins, on aura la vision d'un monde qui veut délibérément ne pas nous ressembler. Ce n'est pas des gens qui veulent être des nôtres, se faire oublier en arrivant comme on fait quand on arrive, un peu paumé, dans une réception où on n'a pas été invité», avait-il développé. «Eux, ils arrivent en faisant du bruit et en s'essuyant aux rideaux», avait-il ajouté.
https://www.20minutes.fr/politique/1008377-20120922-interdire-voile-kippa-essentiel-sage-selon-jean-marie-pen (https://www.20minutes.fr/politique/1008377-20120922-interdire-voile-kippa-essentiel-sage-selon-jean-marie-pen)
He later changed, à la Farage, claiming it's not essential but wise.
As for Portugal, only Baltics and Poland have a lower percentage of muslims, so this is not really relevant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2021, 01:23:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 05, 2021, 12:53:45 PM
Burka bans were discussed in the early 2010s over here but that talk has (fortunately) died out, and some low-level bans were eventually struck down by the courts. I really don't feel comfortable with the state telling people what not to wear, as much as I can personally disapprove of the role of the burka/nicab.
Agreed.
But I think if combine Duque's map above and the one in this wiki (which I assume is reasonably accurate):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dress_in_Europe
Almost every one of the EU15 except Portugal, the UK and Ireland have policies directed at Muslims that would, in the politics of the UK be considered far-right and beyond the pale - incidentally that's why I think Farage's take is interesting (he did support a burka ban in the 2000s but doesn't any more) because I think he is very good at identifying the sort of furthest right you can get while retaining some plausible deniability. It's why I'd just want to carve out that the the UK might not be in the same "Western European" boat on this in terms of contrasts with the US.
As I say - we're not perfect but I think it is a distinction.
The blurb from Spain is outdated, city-level bans were struck down by the Supreme Court, and the issue has died since. That happened nearly a decade ago so the article doesn't seem very up to date. IIRC schools are allowed to ban it as part of their internal rules but they can't discriminate (i.e., they have to ban any kind of head covering).
Not that we don't have issues, like the rampant mosque NIMBYism, but at least there's no discriminatory statutes in place.
In the large Swedish city that I have experience with (Gothenburg) there's an area where largely muslim gangs rule and where even police fear to go. It's been like that since the the immigrant crisis. When I lived in the city, until 2008 it was an area of ex-Yugoslav gangs, mostly Albanians. Before that, in the eighties and early nineties there was no clear majority immigration group, but still a dangerous place full of the poor and uneducated masses. Before that, in the 70s there were Finns. Before that the poor dangerous people were Swedes and lived in the City centre that got torn down to build shopping malls and they got moved to to this suburb.
For each and every population change there's been arguments that that special kind of foreigner is dangerous because of reasons and each and every time they've clawed themselves out of poverty and moved somewhere better. I expect the muslims will do the same in time and they will become rich and won't have to turn to religion to find solace in their miserable poor lives.
So, in a generation the muslims will have moved somewhere better and the Brits will start to immigrate in a massive wave and they will dangerous because of reasons and we'll start to talk about how anglicans are dangerous.
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 02:15:10 PM
For each and every population change there's been arguments that that special kind of foreigner is dangerous because of reasons and each and every time they've clawed themselves out of poverty and moved somewhere better. I expect the muslims will do the same in time and they will become rich and won't have to turn to religion to find solace in their miserable poor lives.
So, in a generation the muslims will have moved somewhere better and the Brits will start to immigrate in a massive wave and they will dangerous because of reasons and we'll start to talk about how anglicans are dangerous.
Exactly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgeXd5kRDg
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 05, 2021, 05:20:30 AM
Viper, I'm gonna need you to connect those dots for me.
Christianity was used to support slavery (and to fight it as well). Just like Islam.
When you listen to KKK types, they describe themselves as extremely religious, and are implementing the will of God.
I don't see much differences.
Perhaps, but slavery existed long before Christianity and in societies with no Christian presence.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 04, 2021, 10:31:49 PM
CC, 8chan is the one you are looking to send Ovb back to.
Thanks, double what I said. :lol:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
White Supremacy is not at all "deeply rooted in Christianity." The majority of Christians in the world don't consider themselves "white." Christianity existed before chattel slavery. Christian church leaders were at the forefront of the antislavery movements. The first formal protests against slavery in the US came from the Quakers, who also banned their members from holding slaves in 1776. William Wilberforce's antislavery actions began after undergoing evangelical Christian conversion.
There were certainly "Christian" voices that condined and even encouraged slavery, but it cannot be argued that white supremacy "is deeply rooted in Christianity."
You can be anti-Christian without being anti-fact.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:41:41 AM
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:12:33 AM
Still does not make islam itself toxic (any more than most other religions I mean), that's two different issues.
No other religion (Judaism might be an exception, not sure) has a divinely inspired death penalty for apostasy.
Judaism's position is a bit odd (in keeping with Judaism, which does everthing a bit oddly).
In Deuteronomy worshiping of other gods is punishable by death. https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm#6
However, it is worth noting that modern Jewish interpretations of the (numerous) death penalties in the OT are, basically, that they are not to be followed - that the evidentiary and procedural requirements for a death penalty were raised so high as to, deliberately, make the penalty impossible in reality to ever actually inflict. All major denominations of Judaism believe this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism
So in theory the religion penalizes apostasy with death, but never in practice.
Moses has been outlawyered.
Quote from: Malthus on February 06, 2021, 08:07:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2021, 08:41:41 AM
Quote from: Threviel on February 05, 2021, 08:12:33 AM
Still does not make islam itself toxic (any more than most other religions I mean), that's two different issues.
No other religion (Judaism might be an exception, not sure) has a divinely inspired death penalty for apostasy.
Judaism's position is a bit odd (in keeping with Judaism, which does everthing a bit oddly).
In Deuteronomy worshiping of other gods is punishable by death. https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm#6
However, it is worth noting that modern Jewish interpretations of the (numerous) death penalties in the OT are, basically, that they are not to be followed - that the evidentiary and procedural requirements for a death penalty were raised so high as to, deliberately, make the penalty impossible in reality to ever actually inflict. All major denominations of Judaism believe this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism
So in theory the religion penalizes apostasy with death, but never in practice.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2021, 09:30:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2021, 10:07:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2021, 09:30:36 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2021, 06:27:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
White Supremacy is not at all "deeply rooted in Christianity." The majority of Christians in the world don't consider themselves "white." Christianity existed before chattel slavery. Christian church leaders were at the forefront of the antislavery movements. The first formal protests against slavery in the US came from the Quakers, who also banned their members from holding slaves in 1776. William Wilberforce's antislavery actions began after undergoing evangelical Christian conversion.
There were certainly "Christian" voices that condined and even encouraged slavery, but it cannot be argued that white supremacy "is deeply rooted in Christianity."
You can be anti-Christian without being anti-fact.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/american-christianitys-white-supremacy-problem
https://time.com/5929478/christianity-white-supremacy/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/03/how-white-supremacy-infected-christianity-republican-party/
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/racism-among-white-christians-higher-among-nonreligious-s-no-coincidence-ncna1235045
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/white-christian-america-needs-moral-awakening/614641/
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/01/883115867/white-supremacist-ideas-have-historical-roots-in-u-s-christianity
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/white-supremacy-christianity-robert-jones_n_5f19f5abc5b6296fbf3fc4f8?ri18n=true
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/books/review/white-too-long-robert-p-jones.html
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498538763/The-Religion-of-White-Supremacy-in-the-United-States
https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/how-i-learned-white-supremacy/
https://commonhymnal.com/blog/christian-white-supremacy-101
https://www.amazon.com/Sin-White-Supremacy-Christianity-Religious/dp/1626982376
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/theological-work-antiracism-needs-include-lament
:huh: 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.
It's funny that some people get their pants in such a twist over Muslims because islamophobia is such a recent thing.
In the mid 20th century Muslim immigration was actively encouraged as Muslims were seen as far less culturally alien, harder working, and generally more law abiding and all round better than Hindus or others.
I wonder how long this will continue before the far right find some other group to hate. I wonder if we are seeing stirrings of the change today with a neo yellow peril and Muslims being victims or the evil Chinese.
Quote from: viper37 on February 07, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2021, 10:07:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2021, 09:30:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2021, 02:56:40 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2021, 02:39:57 PM
:huh: 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?
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2021, 03:04:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2021, 02:39:57 PM
:huh: 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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 07, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Threviel on February 08, 2021, 03:00:59 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Threviel on February 08, 2021, 04:47:36 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Indeed there are and there are huge numbers of them. They are just not a political force like the white ones....yet :ph34r:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2021, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Yes. But very few of them are white nationalists. If you read to the end of my second sentence, you will see the problem.
Quote from: Threviel on February 08, 2021, 03:00:59 PMExtremist islam is not the reason for the problem, it is a symptom.
Yeah I concur with this, though of course with any complex problems symptoms can act as drivers as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 08:40:15 PM
Yes. But very few of them are white nationalists. If you read to the end of my second sentence, you will see the problem.
True but they certainly have lots of reactionary potential if properly mobilized.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2021, 09:04:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 08:40:15 PM
Yes. But very few of them are white nationalists. If you read to the end of my second sentence, you will see the problem.
True but they certainly have lots of reactionary potential if properly mobilized.
Yeah, the GOP could potentially clean house if they found a way to expand to non-white reactionaries and conservatives without alienating the bigot wing of their base.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2021, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2021, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2021, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2021, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Yes. But very few of them are white nationalists. If you read to the end of my second sentence, you will see the problem.
Yeah, that's the claim I was taking issue with. Both evangelical Christianity and white nationalism are perfectly capable of thriving without the other.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2021, 11:43:15 PM
Yeah, that's the claim I was taking issue with. Both evangelical Christianity and white nationalism are perfectly capable of thriving without the other.
For sure, and they have for long periods of time. However it seems, in the US at least, that the two threads are converging. Or perhaps more precisely, that a specific mixture of white nationalism and evangelical Christianity has recently shown itself to be quite potent.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2021, 11:43:15 PM
Yeah, that's the claim I was taking issue with. Both evangelical Christianity and white nationalism are perfectly capable of thriving without the other.
Sure, but the reality is they are closely related for whites in America.
Quote from: Jacob on February 09, 2021, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2021, 11:43:15 PM
Yeah, that's the claim I was taking issue with. Both evangelical Christianity and white nationalism are perfectly capable of thriving without the other.
For sure, and they have for long periods of time. However it seems, in the US at least, that the two threads are converging. Or perhaps more precisely, that a specific mixture of white nationalism and evangelical Christianity has recently shown itself to be quite potent.
Yeah - I'm not even sure it's necessarily to do with evangelism though. The most white nationalist churches in the recent past were definitely the Dutch churches in South Africa which were explicitly racist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2021, 03:43:03 PM
Yeah - I'm not even sure it's necessarily to do with evangelism though. The most white nationalist churches in the recent past were definitely the Dutch churches in South Africa which were explicitly racist.
That depends on what you mean by "to do with evangelism", I reckon.
If you by evangelism you mean "focus on preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, personal conversion experiences, Scripture as the sole basis for faith, and active evangelism" then I suppose not. On the other hand, evangelical Christianity in the US has broadly speaking aligned itself politically with a specific agenda and if that's what someone means when they say "evangelism" then it is plenty related.
Er, what specific agenda are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2021, 04:35:39 PM
Er, what specific agenda are you talking about?
I assume he means Trump.
Trump was, apparently, an agent of God's divine providence. What was God thinking? :(
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2021, 04:35:39 PM
Er, what specific agenda are you talking about?
The GOP agenda.
I'm saying (white) Evangelical Christianity in the US is closely aligned with the GOP agenda and vice versa.
Sheilbh is saying that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Evangelism, which is true if you consider Evangelism as a historical or theological phenomenon. But it is true if you consider American white Evangelical Christianity as cultural and demographic phenomenon.
Quote from: Jacob on February 09, 2021, 05:46:01 PM
Sheilbh is saying that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Evangelism, which is true if you consider Evangelism as a historical or theological phenomenon. But it is true if you consider American white Evangelical Christianity as cultural and demographic phenomenon.
Yeah which is a fair point. What I mean is more that it's not something within the content of evangelical belief. Rather the secular cultural and demographic forces often shape the religion as often (if not more) than they are shaped by them and I think politics will sort of instrumentalise whatever faith is lying around - whether that's Evangelism, or Dutch Calvinist churches, or various brands of Islam, or whatever else.
And as with even very conservative Muslims there's value in distinguishing between believers and people who are using that as a political agenda.
Definitely true. Let's not forget radical Muslims are effectively Muslim protestants. True Conservative Muslims from more traditional sects tend to be a lot more live and let live even when it comes to gay people and other big trigger points for the nutters.
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2021, 06:05:21 PM
Definitely true. Let's not forget radical Muslims are effectively Muslim protestants. True Conservative Muslims from more traditional sects tend to be a lot more live and let live even when it comes to gay people and other big trigger points for the nutters.
It is a bit more complicated than that. And I am not all that interested in playing the "True Muslim" game. True Muslims are whomever says they are a Muslim as far as I am concerned. The most radical ISIS asshole is just as Muslim as the fluffiest hippy Muslim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2021, 05:59:03 PM
Yeah which is a fair point. What I mean is more that it's not something within the content of evangelical belief. Rather the secular cultural and demographic forces often shape the religion as often (if not more) than they are shaped by them and I think politics will sort of instrumentalise whatever faith is lying around - whether that's Evangelism, or Dutch Calvinist churches, or various brands of Islam, or whatever else.
And as with even very conservative Muslims there's value in distinguishing between believers and people who are using that as a political agenda.
Yeah for sure.
There seems to be an affinity between nationalist populism and conservative-ish religion and that seems to be true in a wide number of nations and with a wide number of faiths. So yeah, I'm inclined to agree that it's not something that's inherent in evangelical Christianity compared to any other faith. Rather it's a feature of combining a socially dominant faith with nationalist populism, which frequently shades into racism and other bigotry to a greater or lesser degree.
Yeah I might be wrong about this but sometimes I get the sense that a significant part of people are religious entirely for identity reasons. They don't give a shit about what the religion actually believes in outside of that it is just the religion of their culture. That overlaps with plenty of dislike of the outgroup as per usual.
Quote from: Valmy on February 09, 2021, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 09, 2021, 06:05:21 PM
Definitely true. Let's not forget radical Muslims are effectively Muslim protestants. True Conservative Muslims from more traditional sects tend to be a lot more live and let live even when it comes to gay people and other big trigger points for the nutters.
It is a bit more complicated than that. And I am not all that interested in playing the "True Muslim" game. True Muslims are whomever says they are a Muslim as far as I am concerned. The most radical ISIS asshole is just as Muslim as the fluffiest hippy Muslim.
Yes, but that's because you're a Christian heretic. :P
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 09, 2021, 07:34:09 PM
Yes, but that's because you're a Christian heretic. :P
The Prosperity Gospel folks are Christian heretics, worshipping Mammon as their golden calf, as are the money-focused mega-church grifters and their followers. Anyone who took to Trump to pursue their purported Christian agenda has sold their soul to the Antichrist.
Wow. We are not usually so theological around here.
Quote from: Jacob on February 09, 2021, 05:46:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2021, 04:35:39 PM
Er, what specific agenda are you talking about?
The GOP agenda.
I'm saying (white) Evangelical Christianity in the US is closely aligned with the GOP agenda and vice versa.
Sheilbh is saying that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Evangelism, which is true if you consider Evangelism as a historical or theological phenomenon. But it is true if you consider American white Evangelical Christianity as cultural and demographic phenomenon.
Okay, I would side with Shelf here. The cultural and demographic phenomenon is the same as the historical and theological. You have conservatives Christians who are certainly not evangelical but still side with religious right political movement. "Religious right" is probably a better term. I mean, you have Catholics who jump into this. Catholicism has it's own forms of right wing political extremism but it so weird and alien to American political culture I can't make heads or tails of it.
I think there the reason that Evangelicalism is some prominent is because it is the majority religion in the south... And yeah, this is race thing again. Church attendance is going down among these people. "Christian" is moving from a religious identification to an ethnic identification. Atheists and agnostics are describing themselves as "culturally Christian" which tends to mean "hostile Muslims". It's very troubling. I could do without Nationalism or sectarian hatreds.
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2021, 03:22:37 PM
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.
I only seek to please&inform. You're welcome.
:P
Ok, I just misunderstood what you posted, sorry, I'm tired these days.