|
Goodbye Sweden. (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Znack, you like the stuff churned out by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, don't you? |
I thought you were asking this because of their argument that religion shouldn't be afforded any special status or treated as sacrosanct. Personally, I think it's a reasonable one. As Dawkins says, if I choose to believe there's a fairy living at the bottom of my garden, how does that give me the right to call for the death of anyone who ridicules me for that belief? |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I didn't pull out the race/bigot card because of criticism. |
I wasn't being specific to this situation.
It was more of a general observation
| quote: | I did attack some rather slanted hyperbole along with the person who presented it. There's no question that Muslims have had a hard time adapting to life in European countries and the fact that there has been a significant amount of friction resulting from that.
Honestly, if one of them were on here making cases for their cause with the same level of hyperbole and bias, I'd have taken the exact same approach with them.
Znack has come in here with very inflammatory rhetoric supported with citation from right-wing blogs and publications which painted their anecdotes with shock value. There has been relatively little information forthcoming from more reliable sources concerning this problem, which parallels the level of alarmist conjecture presented by Znack and his sources.
Basically, I reject your assertion that he's been unfairly called out. |
Here in Norway, an islamic group went on the news and wanted the state to build resting homes just for muslims. There are many other similar cases, and it seems like many muslims come to countries and want special priveleges just for being muslims, and instead of adapting to the country they move to they want to change it to how it was where they came from. |
|
|
| Banora |
| Feh, Swedes are gay anyway. :o |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
Here in Norway, an islamic group went on the news and wanted the state to build resting homes just for muslims. There are many other similar cases, and it seems like many muslims come to countries and want special priveleges just for being muslims, and instead of adapting to the country they move to they want to change it to how it was where they came from. |
Similar situations have arisen in Australia, hence:
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
What I do have a major problem with is immigrants criticising the culture of their adopted country. Come, live, enjoy - but don't dare try and alter the very place that took pity on you and opened their doors.
A perfect example: radical Muslims calling their adopted country's women whores, because of a bit of leg being shown. If you don't like it, off back to your own ty country. |
|
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I thought you were asking this because of their argument that religion shouldn't be afforded any special status or treated as sacrosanct. Personally, I think it's a reasonable one. As Dawkins says, if I choose to believe there's a fairy living at the bottom of my garden, how does that give me the right to call for the death of anyone who ridicules me for that belief? |
As a matter of fact, I do agree with this bit. As I believe religions is akin to politicised literature, it must be debated/analysed/criticised as any piece of literature can be. And, if you can tell someone that it is wrong to kill someone because (for whatever reason) he got his idea from "The Catcher in the Rye", then it's also okay to criticise whomever committed a murder because of a religious text. And, if the text explicitly incited murder, then by all means, let's work on that bit.
However, to dismiss everything religious simply because of a few tenets (albeit the most important ones) is as close-minded as following any tradition blindly. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| it seems to me that; by and large, most people who have claim to have issues with Islam really have issues with particular sects thereof and/or ethno-cultural practices of various Arabic peoples as opposed to the religion itself. In truth, I would suggest that most people who express strong views on Islam actually know very little about it. I have no problem with objections to certain cultural practices or acts done by / positions held by individuals; however, let's identify and challenge them properly, as opposed to making idiotic statements like "all muslims are fundimentally oppoesed to all of our values" (as if ALL muslims agree on anything shot of the existance of God and ALL of "us" hold to the same values). |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No, I don't think they're racists. I think they're just like religious fundamentalists - except in this case the phrase "irreligious fundamentalists" makes a lot more sense.
And I'm going to take that as a yes. Oh, those champions of rationality, so much for reason... |
A fundamentalist is someone who knows what is true because he/she has read it in a holy book. I do not know what is true because i have read a holy book. I have read lots of books and i do not regard any of them as holy or sacred and i know what it would take to change my mind. I do not think that is true for fundamentalists. What i think you are doing, is confusing passion with fundamentalism. If one is passionate about politics, nobody calls you a fundamentalist.
There is something about religion that makes one think in terms of fundamentalism and there really is something to be said for that, because fundamentalist religion, really is based upon a holy book. There are people who believe every word of the bible. (not sophisticated theologians i hasten to add) Fundamentalist Christians believe every word of the bible. They do not have the slightest reason to do that. If you actually look at where the bible comes from, there is no reason to think of it as an inerrant book. And nothing is going to change their minds. you can go and read some scientists who are fundamentalist biblical believers and they know the science they have looked at the evidence, but even so. They discount the scientific evidence because it contradicts the holy book.
That is fundamentalism. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
However, to dismiss everything religious simply because of a few tenets (albeit the most important ones) is as close-minded as following any tradition blindly. |
How about we dismiss everything religious because the whole lot of them are just plain silly and stupid?
EDIT:
And not in the fun lolcats way either. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
A fundamentalist is someone who knows what is true because he/she has read it in a holy book. |
No, that's not the meaning of this word. It was coined in American English to name a movement among Protestants in the early half of the previous century based on scriptural inerrancy, and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others. Fundamentalist is said to have been first used in print by Curtis Lee Laws (1868-1946), editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist newspaper. The movement may have roots in the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910, which drew up a list of five defining qualities of "true believers" which other evangelicals published in a mass-circulation series of books called "The Fundamentals." A World's Christian Fundamentals Association was founded in 1918. The words reached widespread use in the wake of the contentious Northern Baptist Convention of 1922 in Indianapolis:Fundamentalism is a protest against that rationalistic interpretation of Christianity which seeks to discredit supernaturalism. This rationalism, when full grown, scorns the miracles of the Old Testament, sets aside the virgin birth of our Lord as a thing unbelievable, laughs at the credulity of those who accept many of the New Testament miracles, reduces the resurrection of our Lord to the fact that death did not end his existence, and sweeps away the promises of his second coming as an idle dream. It matters not by what name these modernists are known. The simple fact is that, in robbing Christianity of its supernatural content, they are undermining the very foundations of our holy religion. They boast that they are strengthening the foundations and making Christianity more rational and more acceptable to thoughtful people. Christianity is rooted and grounded in supernaturalism, and when robbed of supernaturalism it ceases to be a religion and becomes an exalted system of ethics. - Originally from this book It's therefore more accurate to say it is a form of conservatism, in which old ideas are protected against new "corruptions", than "someone who believes something to be true because of a single source".
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I do not know what is true because i have read a holy book. I have read lots of books and i do not regard any of them as holy or sacred and i know what it would take to change my mind. I do not think that is true for fundamentalists. What i think you are doing, is confusing passion with fundamentalism. If one is passionate about politics, nobody calls you a fundamentalist. |
Actually, yeah, you can be called a fundamentalist communist for example, as these almost thousand results yielded by Google can show you.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
There is something about religion that makes one think in terms of fundamentalism and there really is something to be said for that, because fundamentalist religion, really is based upon a holy book. There are people who believe every word of the bible. (not sophisticated theologians i hasten to add) Fundamentalist Christians believe every word of the bible. They do not have the slightest reason to do that. If you actually look at where the bible comes from, there is no reason to think of it as an inerrant book. And nothing is going to change their minds. you can go and read some scientists who are fundamentalist biblical believers and they know the science they have looked at the evidence, but even so. They discount the scientific evidence because it contradicts the holy book.
That is fundamentalism. |
Yes, and Dawkins et alii are not much different, except the "Holy Words" come from a different sort of literature, and aren't considered to be holy. In common, they both take a very infallibilistic approach regarding what they believe to be true, and both sides are way too vocal for their own good. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
How about we dismiss everything religious because the whole lot of them are just plain silly and stupid? |
Actually, I wouldn't ever want to discard the classical Christian egalitarianism, for example. If we can be all the same under God, I'd rather insist that we can be all equals without Him as well. |
|
|
| Banora |
| Znack, you're a Dane, why do you care about Sweden anyway? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Banora
Znack, you're a Dane, why do you care about Sweden anyway? |
Why do 'muricans care about Mexico? |
|
|
|
|
