yeah zak, you're taking your no-nonsense old skool british dude schtick a bit far

Have you read the Koran Wolfy dude?

Also, argument could be made that every institutionalized ideology is a tool for exerting power and control if we're ignoring vast amounts of context. Which means this applies to every major religion, every major political party and so on and so forth.

jesus this thread became a disaster, surprise it hasn't been deleted

There's actually a fair bit of genuine discussion here Essence. It could be much much worse

^ What he said. There were some dumb points being made and some misunderstandings but most of the discussion has actually not been that terrible.


Edit: Apparently they've also closed down the train station here because there's an abandoned suitcase lying around and they are unsure of its contents (and in light of recent events).

"Also, argument could be made that every institutionalized ideology is a tool for exerting power and control if we're ignoring vast amounts of context. Which means this applies to every major religion, every major political party and so on and so forth."

this. it's sooo simplistic and reductive to ignore context and say "look at the Qur'an, it says X omg" ergo Islam is backwards etc etc

ah full disclosure i only saw the last page of dumbfuck generalistic shit being written about islam, carry on

Recently just down the road from me Wolfie, someone laid a cardboard box down on the side of a road with "TELIBAN 4 LIFE" and "BOOM" written in a sharpie pen, yes with Teliban misspelled (https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/150613/bomb_threat_1280_1ann9ml-1ann9n7.jpg?x=656&sig=0rx3pPqlPaB1SCSzX8wyvA--) and the suburb was blocked off for a whole afternoon. And yes it was just a cardboard box. Sign of the times.

Isn't this a somewhat logical and predictable outcome of western aggression in the Middle East?

(Nice discussion, thanks.)

"Isn't this a somewhat logical and predictable outcome of western aggression in the Middle East?"
Yes and no, gonna repeat what I've already said 25025205205250 times: it's definitely a factor but the issues are incredibly complicated.

@pig: Yikes, that sounds more clearly like some teenagers pulling a joke or sth.

"Isn't this a somehwat logical and predictable outcome of western aggression in the Middle East?

(Nice discussion, thanks.)"
Yes, infidel boots scouring the holy land inflames a lot of ultra-conservative Islamists. But it is mute to say that western foreign intervention inspired the ultra-conservative movement in the first place. Anyone in the know would tell you that Wahhabi style Islam has been propagated internationally not just in the Middle East but in places like Nigeria (where you have groups like Boko Haram killing hundreds of girls for the crime of trying to get an education) by the oil money of Saudi Arabia. They have distributed I think 130 million copies of a very austere interpretation and translation of the Ko'ran, not to mention set up thousands of mosques and Islamist schools in every Muslim majority country. You'll notice that before the 1970's this modern form of Jihad and terrorism didn't exist in the same form that it does now. But now it is so deeply embedded in societies beyond the Arabian peninsula, and as the research suggests, by an alarming amount of people. It has become an unsolvable grassroots problem. It does not help that the Quran is very clear in opposition to human rights issues such as free speech, gender equality, homophobia and all that. If it had been reformed, wasn't considered the perfect word of god and had the example of Jesus, not Mohammad then we would have a very different world. Because at the base of Islam, the Ha'dith and what have you, is something comparable to the barbarism in The Old Testament.
The perfect analogy I have heard of, in opposition to the view that all religions are equal is the hypothetical analogy of two desert islands which are identical in every way, but for the fact that you give one the Quran and another the Tripitaka (sacred text of Buddhism). If you came back to the island which you gave the Tripitaka and found they were living like ISIS, you would be flabbergasted. And vice-versa.

It's not about religions being equal it's about religions (or all ideologies rather) being matters of interpretation of practice. If certain guidelines "clearly" state this or that doesn't matter if the adherents don't take that into account. It's also about keeping people from villainizing a certain religion and making it a scapegoat.

Again, practicioners make the religions what they are - not their texts. Buddhism has also been used to justify large scale invasions and attacks just like every other major religion. I.e. you can't take the context out of religion, it's never "just" religion - it's always religion within the context of society, the "Zeitgeist" and all that jazz.

gg thread's still a trainwreck

listen to wolf people

i havent read everything but i hope no one is fucking justifying what happened yesterday

But see if a book like the Quran- considered to be the most important book in the world by millions and millions of Muslims- states that killing people that eat bananas is the command of Allah for bananas are the food of the infidel, then there would be more of a basis for literalist Islamists to kill people that ate bananas and to ostracize those within the faith than there currently is. Emphasis within a religion and stating things ad nauseam really does help give impetus for otherwise normal people to do terrible things- or good things for that matter. We both agree that everyone acts within a context, so then the content within the holy text matters a lot. Hence why modern Wahhabi terrorism has gained a footing with the distribution of free copies of 130 million of the Wahhabi-codified Ko'ran. So yes, if you are brought up with such a text and it is deeply embedded within your cultural identity, then it is central to your actions.
"Again, practicioners make the religions what they are - not their texts. Buddhism has also been used to justify large scale invasions and attacks just like every other major religion. I.e. you can't take the context out of religion, it's never "just" religion - it's always religion within the context of society, the "Zeitgeist" and all that jazz."
So yes you must be referring to the violence that a certain minority of Buddhist people have done. But it's not in their texts, and the justification for their actions were never their religion. You can't say the same for jihad, say where a third generation Muslim that has lived his whole life in North Carolina finds it a good use of his time to migrate to Syria and become one with the Holy Caliphate. That is precisely because of religion. The same way that a Catholic goes to an AIDS ravaged country and preaches the sinfulness in condom use is. Buddhist terrorist attacks are on the other side of the spectrum. The example of Tibet is another great one, because they find themselves in a very similar situation as Palestine, but they aren't acting out in the same violence to a large degree because they practise the most compassionate form of Buddhism.
Call me out if I'm laying out an argument against a position you don't hold, if I'm missing the point here- because I may well be hahah! Best thing on an outset of an argument is to remind the person you're arguing against that you are prone to the inadequacies of humanity!

"i havent read everything but i hope no one is fucking justifying what happened yesterday"

Obviously you didn't because no one is.

"gg thread's still a trainwreck

listen to wolf people"
Idk, I still think most of the discussion so far has been civil apart from a minority that outright went "ISLAM IS BAD" - saying that abrahamic religions are more prone to this and that and have been under various circumstances throughout history is not an inadquate assessment.

this is shocking

" saying that abrahamic religions are more prone to this and that and have been under various circumstances throughout history is not an inadquate assessment. "


but it's not an exactly helpful one is it

"But see if a book like the Quran- considered to be the most important book in the world by millions and millions of Muslims- states that killing people that eat bananas is the command of Allah for bananas are the food of the infidel, then there would be more of a basis for literalist Islamists to kill people that ate bananas and to ostracize those within the faith than there currently is."

Only if the adherents of that religion pay attention to that and put that forward into action. Again, particularly monotheistic religions deliver all the material you need for all kinds of idiotic bullshit - that doesn't necessarily make it more likely for those things to happen. It just gives them the easiest rationalization.


"Emphasis within a religion and stating things ad nauseam really does help give impetus for otherwise normal people to do terrible things- or good things for that matter."
Yes and no, that depends entirely on the environment in which that happens.

"We both agree that everyone acts within a context, so then the content within the holy text matters a lot
Hence why modern Wahhabi terrorism has gained a footing with the distribution of free copies of 130 million of the Ko'ran."
Again, by context I'm talking about the envrionment, geopolitics, large scale ideologies, societal tendencies and conditions. Yes, that text is one contextual factor but it's not the sole contextual factor.

"So yes, if you are brought up with such a text and it is deeply embedded within your cultural identity, then it is central to your actions."
But it only becomes central within the aforementioned specific context.

"So yes you must be referring to the violence that a certain minority of Buddhist people here have done."
Same applies to most terrorism. It's never really a majority.

"But it's not in their texts, and the justification for their actions were never their religion."
Just because it's not specifically mentioned doesn't mean it can't deliver material for a justification. Whether it's an implied or express justification doesn't matter in the end. You can't separate the practice from the religion.