No joke. First, Christan politicians of various denominations from various churches holding office in a secular country with a godless constitution is vastly different than when the church controlled king and country all over the western world. Our founding fathers saw to that. The church's power has been in decline for centuries thanks to luminaries like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. The church has never regained anything like the power it held for the centuries before "the Age of Enlightenment". Source: any world history book. Second, we don't have any idea how many of today's politicians are atheist/agnostic or simple deists because in most places saying so is a sure fire way not to get elected. They wouldn't dare say if they were, but seeing as how most politicians receive a higher education and how higher education leads to a higher rate of atheism, I'd wager the rate of atheist politicians is higher than in the general population. Third, I never said there wasn't a Christian majority in the US. To begin with, I was speaking about the decline of the church's power globally. I shouldn't have to tell you the world has more countries than the United States. With the global economy this distinction (you are too inept to make) is more important now than ever.

The only one of us who should be ashamed is the one with absolutely no sense of perspective. The one who will dismiss the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism because "Christians do bad stuff too!!! WAAAA!" To be clear, the one who should be ashamed will be you, NewtBOY.

I don't care for Christian lies any more than Muslim lies. In the world we live in, in the time we live in, fundamentalists of one of these religions is responsible for quite a bit more suffering. This is primarily due to the neutering of the Christians political power by secular society. When christianity had real power it was just as wicked.

Its not about the complexity of the explanation. Its the fewest assumptions required that matter. Frankly I dont have enough info about Turkey to be an expert.

However what Erdogan and Yldirim say publicly is enough to make your head spin.

Historically the military in Turkey knows how to coup, and does so regularly to support a secular state. Erdogan is a danger to secularism, so a coup would kind of be expected, however an anti-Erdogan religious leader is blamed officially.

All the violence was for TV only, few casualties, no VIP casualties, not much infrastructure damage, but a big hole in the Parliament building. A few thousand people took part, mostly military, taking orders from a small group of commanders. Disproportionately large scale repressions result against tens of thousands of people who might have done no more than made a facebook comment against Erdogan.

Yldirims "dont ask for proof, when 9/11 happened no-one asked for proof either" line of reasoning was a clincher for me.

Looks staged from here. Incompetence would have to have been legendary and suicidal. CIA/Putin is conspiracy theory.
Are the generals now in Greece the stagers? That would be funny (except for the hundreds dead and injured, thousands in jail and tens of thousands out of jobs and careers).

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

@newtboy Uh..dude, "humanist" and "individualist" are already philosophical schools of thought that have determined meanings that aren't anywhere near the realm of feminism (eg, an activist movement for equal rights).

I mean, unless you're trying to stretch humanist to not mean, essentially, secular thought distancing from the dogma of the church and individualist as not the idea of the individual has more weight than collective good or the state. But.. you might have to contend with the fact those aren't the definitions of things you believe you came up with.

@NaMeCaF
you think the sift is "extreme" left?

i would agree it is secular left,in the majority,but EXTREME left?

i am sincerely curious how you came to that conclusion.

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

@newtboy

i do not think your solutions will have the easy results you imply.

contrary to the propaganda WE are fed,groups like ISIS are far more sophisticated and culturally savvy,as this video is evidence to and one of the reasons i posted.

it is easy to buy into the media-concocted trope that ISIS members are a bunch of un-educated,backwater,third world countrymen who are just religious zealots pining for the good old days of a world caliphate from 700 years ago.

but to believe that you would have to ignore the disturbing number of westerners who are joining ISIS.these folks benefited from western,secular education etc etc.

religion,like nationalism,has always been an extremely effective tool to manipulate,control and justify.

islam is not the cause of violence,barbarity and war.
it is the excuse used to justify that violence and barbarity.

the simple and disturbing truth is that propaganda works,nationalism works,religiousity works to get normal folk to engage in violent acts against their fellow man.

america has been perfecting their propaganda system for over a century.perfecting their art of unending war and conflict.

considering how we have injected ourselves in the middle east since the 50's.it appears our middle eastern friends have learned from us,and become quite proficient at emulating the very thing we excel at.

so you would never see this on any cable tv channel or news outlet,but i think its important to see just how well they have become at utilizing media to get across their message.

using americas great gift to the world:marketing.

Ok, I think this got out of hand. My apologies. I wasn't talking about the abuse.

You said "Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself."

My reply was specifically about "that faith". I didn't mean that she would get through the abuse with the help of friends and family, I meant she would get through leaving the church. And yes, this has happened. Thousands of people left the catholic church in Ireland after the child abuse scandals, many of them lifelong devout catholics.

I would never suggest that anyone simply "get over" that kind of abuse, but I can see how you might have misinterpreted my post, so I apologise for that.

That said, people do get help for abuse without churches. There are plenty of secular options available (counselling, support groups, etc).

As for the rest, I still maintain that my direct experience of abuse or lack thereof has no bearing on the argument. I could tell you all kinds of things, but you wouldn't even know if they were true, to say nothing of a betrayal of trust on my part.

Or would you expect rape trauma counsellors they have to be raped to help victims?

As for the black man example, again, you know nothing about what discrimination I may or may not have faced (hint: the Irish didn't have too flash a time of it for a long time). I would never be so condescending as to say that I know ANYONES life, but that doesn't mean I can't empathise with them. Even if I've never been shot by a cop, I'm damn sure it's something I wouldn't like.

@newtboy

I'll give you my brother's phone number. He went from secular to devout for a reason. You don't like the word "need"? Then pick another one and stop with the pedantic nit picking.

People choose to be religious all the time. There is a different word. They choose religion.

Why?

I have heard people say they "need" it.

I suspect that you have never had a respectful conversation with someone who chose religion. It takes time to get to motive. If you are lecturing them about how they are wrong, you aren't going to hear them.

So, I have a limit to how much time I am willing to spend talking to judgmental zealots who want to dictate how other people should live and think. I've reached it now.

(I hope you noticed that I in no way have defended religion from its excesses and crimes. I have stayed focused on individuals making individual decisions about their own lives. Rather Libertarian of me, isn't it?)

@newtboy

Wishful thinking on your part, Newt Dear. You both dearly want people to not want religion.

Billions of people choose religion. Some fake it. Some leave. Some hate it.

My brother grew up in a secular household and has been a devout Mormon for 40 years. I grew up in the same household, and find the idea of organized religion intellectually embarrassing.

Both of you are railing against the preponderance of evidence you are surrounded by. SOME people are drawn to religion. This is just a part of human existence.

I find it so odd that both of you want this fact to be incorrect. Humans create religions, which lead to churches. They have done it for millennia. How you can look at the evidence that surrounds you and say it isn't so baffles me.

It's all good. Just like my brother, you want to believe what you want to believe.

I don't try to argue my brother out of his dogma. So I'm going to stop trying to argue you guys out of your dogma.

@Barbar
i do not know if you are aware,but you actually made my point in regards to justification.specifically your third paragraph.

as for the disagreement in regards to religious texts being inert and neutral.this should not really be an issue and should be plain for all to see.religious texts are amalgamations,musings,stories,philosophies all jammed into a canonized text.they are often hypocritical and contradictory.it is the reader that interprets and injects their own subjective understandings based on their own proclivities.

which then makes religious text a subjective text.so if you are violent,then your interpretations will be violence,which would lead to justifications based on those interpretations.

unless you are using fundamentalism as a fulcrum.which sees religious text as the unerring word of god,which brings a whole new conundrum into focus:contradictory philosophies which are in diametric opposition.which is an impossibility to reconcile,but again brings us to my main point:justification.(by way of mental gymnastics).

and harris does not just smell like apologist BS,he IS an apologist.now this is understandable when seen through the lens of nationalism,but it engages in the same wishful thinking harris accuses many religious people of engaging in.

we WANT to feel we are the good guys.
we WANT to think that what we are doing is for a higher,and more morale purpose.
we WANT to think all this violence and bloodshed is ultimately for a better and more prosperous future for everybody involved.
we WANT to believe that our government is not just destroying and destabilizing whole communities with wanton destruction just so our corporations can have a new market to exploit,or to control the oil fields for BP and chevron to control.

but thats not the reality.
our wants are just wishful thinking and an inability to accept that we cling to these wants to justify horror,destruction and death.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

so what is OUR justification?
so just like the more moderate and secular muslims who look the other way when faced with horror.we too,look away at the truth of things,because to recognize the reality means to accept responsibility.
we have blood on our hands....all of us.
as do those muslims who also look away.

but the allure of justifications....
to have the ability to turn horror into righteousness.
it is extremely powerful,and we ALL participate.
even sam harris.

what a fantastic discussion.
i would just like to add a few points:
1.religious texts are inert.they are neutral.
WE give them meaning.
so if you are a violent person,your religion will be violent.
if you are a peaceful and loving person,your religion will be peaceful and loving.
2.religion,along with nationalism,are the two greatest devices used by the state/tyrant/despot/king to instigate a populace to war/violence.
3.as @Barbar noted.islam is in serious need of reformation,much like the christian church experienced centuries ago.see:the end of the dark ages.
4.one of my problems with maher,harris and to a lesser extent dawkins,is that they view this strictly as a religious problem and ignore the cultural and social implications of the wests interventionism in the middle east.this is a dynamic and complicated situation,which goes back decades and to simply say that this is a problem with islam is just intellectually lazy.

there is a reason why these communities strap bombs to their chest.there is a reason why they behead people on youtube.there is a reason why salafism and wahabism are becoming more entrenched and communities are becoming more radicalized.

islam is NOT the reason.
islam is the justification.

the reason why liberals lose absofuckingalways,is because they not only feel they are,as @gorillaman pointed out,"good" but that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us.

sam harris is a supreme offender in this regard.that somehow the secular west has "better" or "good" intentions when we interfere with the middle east.that when a US drone strike wipes out a wedding party of 80 people is somehow less barbaric than the beheading of charlie hedbo.

yet BOTH are barbaric.

and BOTH utilize a device that justifies their actions.
one uses national security and/or some altruistic feelgood propaganda and the other uses islam.

yet only one is being occupied,oppressed,bombed and murdered.

this is basic.
there really is no controversy.
this is in our own history.
what is the only response when faced with an overwhelming and deadly military force,when your force is substantially weaker?
guerrilla warfare.

so the tactic of suicide bomber becomes more understandable when put in this context.
it is an act of desperation in the face of overwhelming military might to instill fear and terror upon those who wish to dominate and oppress.

and islam is the device used to justify these acts of terror.
just as nationalism and patriotism are used to justify OUR acts of terror.

thats my 2c anyways.
carry on peoples.

3 things, I may have mixed them a bit.

1 - past experience specifically with muslim migrants (some may have been refugees) in Europe - overall not great, mostly they consider our social system and political correctness as signs of weakness. They consider themselves superior, the first generation may be grateful for a better life than back home but the second and third generations feel superior to non-muslims (especially jews and atheists, but also christians) and entitled to benefits while hating the secular state. Will the current and future waves accomodate better? This has nothing to do with our imperative to help those in need, it is a practical problem. Also not racist - although I do admit racism and xenophobia are a major problem in many parts of Europe and trouble me very much in my own country. More so than the Vietnamese or Ukrainians or people from the Balkans "these people" organize in clans and tribes and will try to impose their view of the world on us, who organise in tiny families and on facebook. Albanian thugs are well organised but they dont hold the view that everyone else should be an Albanian thug too.

2 - current wave of migrants and refugees - lets assume we are talking only about real Syrians boarding boats in Turkey trying to reach Greek islands and not people from all over north africa trying to reach Italy or anyone else trying to reach the EU (possibly pretending to be Syrian). So we have this exemplary Syrian family which has run away from a war to Turkey. They are safe there, only they have to either stay for a couple of years in a refugee camp before they can try to find work or they have to survive in a grey economy sort of like Mexicans in the USA. They know that if they dont apply for asylum in Turkey and manage to set foot on EU soil they can ask for asylum there and be treated better than in Turkey. So these boat people are actually not running from war to asylum but rather from one asylum to another. They make sure not to stop in Greece or Croatia or Austria or Hungary but head for Germany or Sweden. Mostly I believe they have no idea of political geography but they have mobile phones and friends who have already made the journey and know how to milk the local system. So for purposes of compassion they are refugees and totally need our help but from a clinically economic (yes, materialistic) point of view they are very much migrants. Migrants we feel obliged to help because they are sort of refugees too.

3 - the mass and speed of the exodus means we are stretched to accomodate them and they will later start to passionately hate us because Europe will not be the heaven they expected it to be.
A few thousand refugees every year are no big deal even for a small EU state. Hundreds of thousands will be very difficult to take care of in the entire union. Inviting more is just irresponsible.

The good news is that the real Syrian refugees who make it to Europe will probably be the more resourceful, better educated part of the current wave of incoming people and will be able to take care of themselves fairly quickly by my estimate. Also they are mostly variants of Shia - the less orthodox branch of muslims. I am worried more about future waves than the current one.

Maybe we have messed up a bit but we need to learn from our mistakes, and even Germany is now guarding its borders. It would be better if we were able to guard the Shengen perimeter.
Then if we wanted to save more refugees we could send trains or planes to pick them up in Turkey or Jemen. You know, set up an EU consulate there so they could directly apply for asylum in the EU country of their picking. But we have to make a conscious decision first - how many people from the desolate and failing parts of the world do we want to save over a given time period so that we dont fail ourselves. Are we failing? Ask the jewish families who used to live in Malmo until recently.

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.