@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

Muslim fundamentalists seem to be more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones. The reasons for this have little to do with the religious fundamentals themselves as laid out in their holy books. Both books are full of soaring praise of peace and execrable lust for vengeance over imagined slights. Both books really do say that those who don't worship your way should be put to death. Whether you listen to the nasty parts or the nice ones has everything to do with your relative economic situation. If you are satisfied with your lot, it is easy to find the passages of your screed that advocate peace, harmony, and tradition. If you are unhappy and see yourself as oppressed, it is easy to find the passages that advocate war, upheaval, and radical acts of violence against the oppressor. Muslim fundamentalists are more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones because the Muslim countries are poorer. The radical messages get more traction among them. The more poor Christians we accumulate in this country, the more our own homegrown radicals, the WBC, will be taken seriously.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

Thanks, Gundam. It helps to hear that sometimes!

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^draak13:
Why is this getting upvoted?
To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.
Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.

You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that). You'll find lots of Condel's videos (and other anti-Islam videos as well) have been Sifted. I used to comment on them about the absurdity of condemning a religion (which, like Christianity, has numerous different sects and faction and is practiced by people with widely differing cultural and educational backgrounds, not to mention political motivations) based on the actions of some of its members but I mostly got shouted down as a "cultural apologist/relativist."
I will say that the frequency with which these types of videos get submitted and Sifted has decreased over the years, which seems to indicate that other Sifters got as sick of the rhetoric as I was.

>> ^draak13:

Why is this getting upvoted?
To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.
Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.

The majority badly need to speak up them, because I don't hear that message coming through at all. I mean, I do believe that most muslims are moderate and their religion has been hijacked and repurposed by hateful extremists but yah, where is this majority. Why is it that whenever islam is in the news its doing something fucking stupid.


Oh, and moderate or not you'd gotta admit their holy book is fertile soil for this hate and intolerance. Moderates may condemn these acts, but when they are inspired by words printed in this book that both sides, moderate or otherwise, place upon a pedestal...Are they not in some sense enabling this fanatiscm simply by being muslim?

ps. The video is titled to be directed at rioting muslims.

>> ^draak13:

Why is this getting upvoted?
To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.
Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.


You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that). You'll find lots of Condel's videos (and other anti-Islam videos as well) have been Sifted. I used to comment on them about the absurdity of condemning a religion (which, like Christianity, has numerous different sects and faction and is practiced by people with widely differing cultural and educational backgrounds, not to mention political motivations) based on the actions of some of its members but I mostly got shouted down as a "cultural apologist/relativist."

I will say that the frequency with which these types of videos get submitted and Sifted has decreased over the years, which seems to indicate that other Sifters got as sick of the rhetoric as I was.

Why is this getting upvoted?

To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.

Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.

And folks wonder why there is this whole stigma that southern people are stupid. Watching Mitt Romney cater to this misinformation and bullshit when he himself doesn't hold the same belief, makes him a despicable human being.

In my opinion only a handful of these people are stupid. The rest are victims of a piss poor education system, religious brainwashing and a lack of critical thinking. But what can you expect when you have southern states actively trying to downplay scientific fact and instill religious fundamentalism and removal of critical thinking in southern schools.

I am just beyond thankful I was born in a largely democratic, north-eastern state.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mike lofgren, bill moyers, religious fundamentalism' to 'mike lofgren, bill moyers, religious fundamentalism, middle class' - edited by messenger

>> ^kevingrr:

@ghark
1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.
Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:

2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.
If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.
As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.
3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.
One last link regarding Hedges:
Here


Shouldn't the definition of terrorism (of which there are many) be carefully examined before making that statement? I assume you are using the 'American mainstream media' version, which of course means, an act in which a colored person with a beard tries to inflict injury or death on other (usually white) people. If the definition is not looked at with mainstream-media-tinted spectacles then it would not be a stretch to say that the 105,000+ documented Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 were caused by American (and allied troops) terrorism. Political and resource motivated civilian slaughter on a massive scale (and on foreign soil) sounds very terrorist-like to me. Using this line of logic, would it not make more statistical sense to worry about young to middle aged white males having access to military training than scanning middle aged Muslim men at airports.

My point is not to blame the US troops, Australian troops were also involved, my point is simply that someone of Harris' intellect should be above the simple fear mongering and use of blatant misleading generalizations that he's demonstrating in this video. He was one of my hero's for a while there, and seeing him for what he truly seems to be leaves me a bit hollow inside.

As far as Hedges goes, he seems to be on the mark most of the time, and is an excellent speaker, however I thought his shots at Harris were pretty poor form (during his book launch) because it just seemed to be a blatant publicity stunt, so I agree with you on that to a degree.

Please take in mind My BS meter couldn't handle more than about 25-30 mins of the video, and as @LukinStone mentions, Harris explains some of his comments in more detail later in the video, I just couldn't make it that far unfortunately. Most of what I was hearing was self-gratification, "a large American city has about a 50% chance of having a nuclear bomb set off in it within the next decade or so", racist comments and some war mongering, there's only so much I can take

@ghark

1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.


Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:


2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.

If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.

As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.

3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.

One last link regarding Hedges:
Here

>> ^rex84:

What I can't understand is how anyone fails to see that religious fundamentalism OF ANY FORM OR FLAVOR does not belong in government or as the basis of law. We so easily look at Iran and see how their theocratic regime is evil, but fail to recognize it on our own shores.


I like to think that most of us actually -do- recognize and abhor fundamentalism here.

OTOH, I also liked to think that there was no possible way that GWB could get enough people to support him to win a second election...and you see where that got me.

What I can't understand is how anyone fails to see that religious fundamentalism OF ANY FORM OR FLAVOR does not belong in government or as the basis of law. We so easily look at Iran and see how their theocratic regime is evil, but fail to recognize it on our own shores.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thanks. Your comment is exactly why I posted it.

This is the power of the internet -- getting past the money-making images. Fear sells papers and catches eyes on the TV news, not love.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
I have colleagues and friends who've immigrated to my country from Iran and who're in in daily contact with as well as take regular trips to the friends and family they've got living there. The image I've gotten of the place is nothing like the devilish hell hole that US and European media depicts it to be. It's a modern society with an ancient culture. Sure it's a country which struggles with poverty, social injustice and religious fundamentalism, that's undeniable. However, in many regards the same image could be painted of the US or even my own country of Sweden, should anyone feel the desire to do so, even if the degree to which the national problems manifest themselves vary. What is so very important to keep in mind, and what the media is very careful not to show you, is the actual people. That's why I like this video and others like it (although the music in this one wasn't really necessary IMO), because it humanizes them in a media conversation which otherwise thrives on dehumanizing to push a political agenda.