Is there a war between the "Christian civilization" and the "Islamic Civilization"?
Yes
19.8% (23)
19.8% (23)
No
78.4% (91)
78.4% (91)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is there a war between Christian civilization and Islamic Civilization?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I made a thread some time ago after the Oslo terrorist attacks, prompted by one of my former friends expressing support for Breivik's actions by noting that the teenagers on site were to blame seeing how they did not arm.

I asked the Escapist whether or not they felt that the butchering of innocents that he engaged in was justified, and as I'm making this post the vote sits at 7.3% of the Escapist favouring this option.

I'm now curious, while many reject Breivik's methods there are a large number of people I hear in my daily life who shares his worldview, that Europe and her former colonies are a Christian Civilization while muslim countries comprise an Islamic Civilization, who are at war. How many here share this view? And why?

My old thread in case anyone has more to add to the discussion:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.323140-Poll-Oslo-Terrorist-justified?

Breaking news: at least 7.3% of internet users are raging douchebags

Being serious, I'd say that it's not really a war, but a definite clash of cultures, which definitely hasn't been helped by the way things are going in American politics. In reality it's just radical people on both sides saying they're using religion, whereas they'd probably have found some other excuse if Islam/Christianity wasn't around.

A lot of people feel there is a war because of media portrayal, in my opinion. If you look at it from an Iraqi's point-of-view, America is a Christian nation whose president leads prayers for wounded soldiers, and they see footage of Americans praising God for the death of Osama Bin Laden. There's actually a TED talk on this I think. Obviously it goes both ways & isn't limited exclusively to America, that was just the first example I could think of.

No.

There are elements within both sides that are mutually, violently in opposition. This clash of civilisations trope is their idea, where they presume to speak for their entire culture. Buying into this fallacious notion is a mistake, and plays into the hands of both.

I never post any more, as I have atrophied into a pair of fingers and squinting, judgmental eyes, but just for this;

http://shop.abc.net.au/products/people-like-us-how-arrogance-is-dividing-islam-and-the-west

This is a book from a muslim-raised Australian, Waleed Aly. If any other human being on the planet ever listens to ABC's Radio National, you'll know him for his voice if nothing else. It's a well-written appeal for everybody to chill the everloving fuck out on the west/east side story. It has it's problems, but it's intelligent and puts a lot of bullshit in it's place on both sides.

As for me; People in the middle east and the west are all people. Mostly they want to eat some good food, get to choose what they do some of the time, and not get shot at. The last one is especially prevalent. Both cultures are circling the parking lot with switchblades because social policy and national agenda moves slower than a glacier. We're separate people, but to divide us a civilization is gross disservice to the 'other side'. You can bet your ass that somewhere out on the internet, bored, game loving Muslims (or, rather, Muslim-nation natives) are rolling their eyes at their own stupid, religion-fueled politics and having atheism/theism debates just as futile as ours.

Yes, some parts of their culture are, frankly, shit. But so are some of ours. We're getting better, by inches, all of us.

I don't think there is a "war" of such. There are millions of Muslims living in Europe who have settled here with their families to earn an honest living, and don't really cause any problems.

Some people, both radical white people and radical Muslims do argue that there is a war and go around trying to create one- e.g- Anders Brevick and the 7/7 bombers, the EDL and organisations like Islam4UK. But this is a war that exists in their minds, born out of hatred for the Other.

Whilst Brevick and Abu Qatada are advocating war against eachother, ordinary white people and Muslims co-exist in relative peace.

There certainly have been and are a few. Presently, Nigeria springer to mind. And Indonesia, although that is more one-direction agression of Muslims against all others. Eastern Timor for instance also suffered a war of Muslims against Christians, which lead to it's independance.

Also the Balkan Wars come to mind. I think that's the last war in Europe that saw slaughter on a religious scale. Religion has always caused conflicts and wars.

But war as in ongoing 'clash of cultures' kind of stuff? No. There's all kinds of normal exchanges, and there's no such thing as a 'Christian civilization' or an 'Islamic civilization'. Everything is too diverse to take into account as a whole.

My first thought on seeing the title was this:

image

Good reading, actually, maybe a bit outdated, but he managed to predict stuff quite well, for example the Iranian nuclear crisis.

When Muslims are angry with 'Christians' (which I'd define here as people from historically Christian-culture countries rather than people who believe in the Christian god per se) then they tend to harm other Muslims. Breivik suggests that when the 'Christians' fight back, they'll probably spend a lot of time harming other 'Christians'.

You might want to define what "Muslim civilisation" and "Christian civilisation" are. Those labels would be better applied to big monolithic blocks, which isn't how things are.

There are lots of people wanting to use hatred, either for political reasons or personal gratification (you may argue which is which), but so has it always been, so will it ever be.

Currently religion provides useful banners to flock under and/or target, but they will be abandoned the moment something more useful comes up.

How many people who hate all Muslims would suddenly stop if every Muslim in the world converted to another religion, even the hater's own? A new justification for the hatred would be found and things would carry on much as they have been.

thaluikhain:
You might want to define what "Muslim civilisation" and "Christian civilisation" are. Those labels would be better applied to big monolithic blocks, which isn't how things are.

That's just how I understand Breivik's worldview. I think they're Medieval fairytale-class generalizations.

Spot the problems with this map as an effective predictor of conflicts. This might help:

The whole "Clash of Civilizations" theory makes no sense, and it's testament to quite how stupid the Bush regime was that they honestly thought it was worth paying taxpayers money to get people to write about it.

Conflict is, ultimately, a local and specific affair. You can't take the current US involvement in Afghanistan and assume you could simply replace the US with Denmark and Afghanistan with Turkey it would be the same war, based on the same motives and the same global cultural pressures. Wars happen for specific, localized reasons, they are initiated and carried out by thinking human beings, they are not the expression of eternal and immutable conflicts between "civilizations" composed of faceless drones.

No thats just silly, neither Christian or Muslim civilization are really united anyway. The Muslims in particular are very hung up on the whole Sunni-Shia conflict.

Istvan:
I made a thread some time ago after the Oslo terrorist attacks, prompted by one of my former friends expressing support for Breivik's actions by noting that the teenagers on site were to blame seeing how they did not arm.

I asked the Escapist whether or not they felt that the butchering of innocents that he engaged in was justified, and as I'm making this post the vote sits at 7.3% of the Escapist favouring this option.

I'm now curious, while many reject Breivik's methods there are a large number of people I hear in my daily life who shares his worldview, that Europe and her former colonies are a Christian Civilization while muslim countries comprise an Islamic Civilization. How many here share this view? And why?

My old thread in case anyone has more to add to the discussion:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.323140-Poll-Oslo-Terrorist-justified?

People think Breivik was justfied? That's really depressing.

As for how you define the relationship between Islam and Christianity, I think it's far too varied to give it one label. In fact, even if you were to give it a label, 'war' wouldn't be the one I'd use.
For a start there are a great many sects of both faiths, which often hate each other as much as the other faith. Islam isn't a homogeneous entity, and neither is Christianity for that matter. So describing all Muslims as a single block with similar aims is pretty imprecise.

Secondly, I don't think the level of conflict going on (relative to the scale of the players in question) is sufficient to class as a war. I concede that some entities (for example the Taliban and Al-Qaeda) are 'at war' or at least actively hostile to the West, but that doesn't mean you can label the entire religion as being 'at war with the West'.
That's like saying "because Mexican drug smugglers killed a DEA agent the entirety of South America is now at war with the US".

At the end of the day, there are tensions between the two faiths on the whole, but that's the same as with any other exchange of ideas throughout the course of human history, whether religious, political or other. These tensions aren't enough to legitimately define them as a war, especially when many of the Middle Eastern nations have close military ties with the US, a Christian nation - the supposed 'enemy'.

There is no war between both cultures. There is a war however between the fanatic islamic world and the "free" world. But it would be above absurd to put all the muslims in the same pot. Many of tham accept the principles of liberty and freedom and are not willing for the shariah law to be founding principle of a country. However what happens is that due to a laxism of western governments towards such extremist groups people come into contact with their hateful speeches more often and this tends to create a certain fear.

No, there are a few violent extremists who use Islam as a justification to their violence/bullshit.

And that ideology comes into conflict with the values of the rest of the world.

I know a few Muslims myself, and they're all pretty decent people...well I mean one of them is a bit of a skanky princess type and the other one creeps me out a little, but that's just high school for you.

I'm glad that the person expressing support for Breivik is a "former friend," since someone that would support the slaughter of nearly 100 teenagers is a vile piece of shit.

Not in any real sense. Fringe elements murdering one another hardly count for entire societies engaged in open warfare. And yes, while some countries are lead by those fringe elements, for it to be a war you'll need more than just poorly educated extremists. Though that's a harder stance to maintain in America than it seems, the lunatic Islamophobes are organized politically and conspiracy theories are rampant. While there is no open war, the Oslo attacks were hardly the only instance of anti-Islam hysteria resulting in murder.

Esotera:
Breaking news: at least 7.3% of internet users are raging douchebags

Or, more likely, trolls.

I dont know if you can call it a war.

Theres certainly a massive clash going on, and its only going to get bigger. Expect more Breiviks and Dönermörder soon.

i would say tensions are rising between the more fundamentalist members of each group, but i do not think it is at war yet. although im not gonna leave the future possibilities of such a thing out.

OneCatch :

As for how you define the relationship between Islam and Christianity, I think it's far too varied to give it one label. In fact, even if you were to give it a label, 'war' wouldn't be the one I'd use.

Agreed, the idea of it being a war between Islam and Christianity is too nebulous to call it a war.

I think it's more like the dominant countries and their allies taking advantage of their economic, political and military strengths to bully the less dominant countries for things like resources and extensions on their spheres of influence (I used the word bully though I don't want to imply that I think the actions of the dominant countries is wrong).
I think it just happens to be that a disproportionate number of those dominant countries happen to be predominantly or identify as Christian countries, and quite a few of the countries they are taking advantage of are Islamic.

Also it helps that (I assume most of us are) we're posting from those Christian/Western/dominant countries so it is portrayed as an "Us or Them" for media convenience in a lot of situations.

OT: Is there a war between... and do people share that view?
No there isn't a war, but there are people that would very much like that to be the case. Once you look deeper at mainstream Islamic v Christian actions there are always other factors; the medieval crusades opened up trade routes with the East, increased the lands held by lords and improved reputations (from a Christian perspective of course)

generals3:
There is no war between both cultures. There is a war however between the fanatic islamic world and the "free" world. But it would be above absurd to put all the muslims in the same pot. Many of tham accept the principles of liberty and freedom and are not willing for the shariah law to be founding principle of a country. However what happens is that due to a laxism of western governments towards such extremist groups people come into contact with their hateful speeches more often and this tends to create a certain fear.

No. The Islamists do not want to destroy Western civilization, they merely want to destroy its influence in the Middle East. That was the point, the governments created with western idea's like nationalism and democracy had failed the Middle East, and now they should go back to their old Islamic ways as that is the path to success according the Islamists. However they initially confined their attacks towards the Nationalist states they were in like Nasser's Egypt or Al-Asad's Syria (no not the one you hear in the news, this was the guy's dad, who coincidentally had been doing the same type of massacres you're hearing now for decades) while at the same time criticizing Western way of life and religion (not Christianity, they respect Christianity, it was just the way Westerners practiced it as though it was a movie theater with each pastor trying to get bigger auditoriums and advertising, getting more food and entertainment there etc. instead of full on religion).

Warforger:

generals3:
There is no war between both cultures. There is a war however between the fanatic islamic world and the "free" world. But it would be above absurd to put all the muslims in the same pot. Many of tham accept the principles of liberty and freedom and are not willing for the shariah law to be founding principle of a country. However what happens is that due to a laxism of western governments towards such extremist groups people come into contact with their hateful speeches more often and this tends to create a certain fear.

No. The Islamists do not want to destroy Western civilization, they merely want to destroy its influence in the Middle East. That was the point, the governments created with western idea's like nationalism and democracy had failed the Middle East, and now they should go back to their old Islamic ways as that is the path to success according the Islamists. However they initially confined their attacks towards the Nationalist states they were in like Nasser's Egypt or Al-Asad's Syria (no not the one you hear in the news, this was the guy's dad, who coincidentally had been doing the same type of massacres you're hearing now for decades) while at the same time criticizing Western way of life and religion (not Christianity, they respect Christianity, it was just the way Westerners practiced it as though it was a movie theater with each pastor trying to get bigger auditoriums and advertising, getting more food and entertainment there etc. instead of full on religion).

That is a very narrow analysis of the situation. Fundamentalists have expanded the war beyond that of their own sovereignity. Those Shariah4UK/Belgium/etc. organizations are trying to take down our founding principles in western countries. And when it comes to meddling in their affairs whatever we do its never ok. If we interfere it's us meddling, if we let dictators slaughter their population we're pricks. The power of the western world has given it responsibilities that will piss off people. This is not to say that the western world hasn't made huge selfish mistakes in the past that has helped build a bad relation with the middle east.

Additionally you say those extremists respect christianity. My ass they do. In hardcore islamic countries Christians are persecuted and even in belgium islamic publishers publish books that are supposedly "guides" for muslims in which is clearly stated christians and jews are inferior. If that's respect than you have a weird definition of respect.

If anything every day those fundamentalists give us new reasons to exterminate them. Because it is quite clear that's their desire towards us.

generals3:

Warforger:

generals3:
There is no war between both cultures. There is a war however between the fanatic islamic world and the "free" world. But it would be above absurd to put all the muslims in the same pot. Many of tham accept the principles of liberty and freedom and are not willing for the shariah law to be founding principle of a country. However what happens is that due to a laxism of western governments towards such extremist groups people come into contact with their hateful speeches more often and this tends to create a certain fear.

No. The Islamists do not want to destroy Western civilization, they merely want to destroy its influence in the Middle East. That was the point, the governments created with western idea's like nationalism and democracy had failed the Middle East, and now they should go back to their old Islamic ways as that is the path to success according the Islamists. However they initially confined their attacks towards the Nationalist states they were in like Nasser's Egypt or Al-Asad's Syria (no not the one you hear in the news, this was the guy's dad, who coincidentally had been doing the same type of massacres you're hearing now for decades) while at the same time criticizing Western way of life and religion (not Christianity, they respect Christianity, it was just the way Westerners practiced it as though it was a movie theater with each pastor trying to get bigger auditoriums and advertising, getting more food and entertainment there etc. instead of full on religion).

That is a very narrow analysis of the situation. Fundamentalists have expanded the war beyond that of their own sovereignity. Those Shariah4UK/Belgium/etc. organizations are trying to take down our founding principles in western countries. And when it comes to meddling in their affairs whatever we do its never ok. If we interfere it's us meddling, if we let dictators slaughter their population we're pricks. The power of the western world has given it responsibilities that will piss off people. This is not to say that the western world hasn't made huge selfish mistakes in the past that has helped build a bad relation with the middle east.

Additionally you say those extremists respect christianity. My ass they do. In hardcore islamic countries Christians are persecuted and even in belgium islamic publishers publish books that are supposedly "guides" for muslims in which is clearly stated christians and jews are inferior. If that's respect than you have a weird definition of respect.

If anything every day those fundamentalists give us new reasons to exterminate them. Because it is quite clear that's their desire towards us.

Even if there are some extremists, it doesnt justify killing off other, innocent muslims, or even worse as in Breiviks case innocent children/teens. Besides that, the rate of fundamentals in western countries is low, it's just the problem that those usually are the loudest bunch and thus more likely to get noticed.

lapan:

generals3:

Warforger:

No. The Islamists do not want to destroy Western civilization, they merely want to destroy its influence in the Middle East. That was the point, the governments created with western idea's like nationalism and democracy had failed the Middle East, and now they should go back to their old Islamic ways as that is the path to success according the Islamists. However they initially confined their attacks towards the Nationalist states they were in like Nasser's Egypt or Al-Asad's Syria (no not the one you hear in the news, this was the guy's dad, who coincidentally had been doing the same type of massacres you're hearing now for decades) while at the same time criticizing Western way of life and religion (not Christianity, they respect Christianity, it was just the way Westerners practiced it as though it was a movie theater with each pastor trying to get bigger auditoriums and advertising, getting more food and entertainment there etc. instead of full on religion).

That is a very narrow analysis of the situation. Fundamentalists have expanded the war beyond that of their own sovereignity. Those Shariah4UK/Belgium/etc. organizations are trying to take down our founding principles in western countries. And when it comes to meddling in their affairs whatever we do its never ok. If we interfere it's us meddling, if we let dictators slaughter their population we're pricks. The power of the western world has given it responsibilities that will piss off people. This is not to say that the western world hasn't made huge selfish mistakes in the past that has helped build a bad relation with the middle east.

Additionally you say those extremists respect christianity. My ass they do. In hardcore islamic countries Christians are persecuted and even in belgium islamic publishers publish books that are supposedly "guides" for muslims in which is clearly stated christians and jews are inferior. If that's respect than you have a weird definition of respect.

If anything every day those fundamentalists give us new reasons to exterminate them. Because it is quite clear that's their desire towards us.

Even if there are some extremists, it doesnt justify killing off other, innocent muslims, or even worse as in Breiviks case innocent children/teens. Besides that, the rate of fundamentals in western countries is low, it's just the problem that those usually are the loudest bunch and thus more likely to get noticed.

Doesnt help that we are so ready to amplify a minorities voice tenfold too.

generals3:

Warforger:

generals3:
There is no war between both cultures. There is a war however between the fanatic islamic world and the "free" world. But it would be above absurd to put all the muslims in the same pot. Many of tham accept the principles of liberty and freedom and are not willing for the shariah law to be founding principle of a country. However what happens is that due to a laxism of western governments towards such extremist groups people come into contact with their hateful speeches more often and this tends to create a certain fear.

No. The Islamists do not want to destroy Western civilization, they merely want to destroy its influence in the Middle East. That was the point, the governments created with western idea's like nationalism and democracy had failed the Middle East, and now they should go back to their old Islamic ways as that is the path to success according the Islamists. However they initially confined their attacks towards the Nationalist states they were in like Nasser's Egypt or Al-Asad's Syria (no not the one you hear in the news, this was the guy's dad, who coincidentally had been doing the same type of massacres you're hearing now for decades) while at the same time criticizing Western way of life and religion (not Christianity, they respect Christianity, it was just the way Westerners practiced it as though it was a movie theater with each pastor trying to get bigger auditoriums and advertising, getting more food and entertainment there etc. instead of full on religion).

That is a very narrow analysis of the situation. Fundamentalists have expanded the war beyond that of their own sovereignity. Those Shariah4UK/Belgium/etc. organizations are trying to take down our founding principles in western countries. And when it comes to meddling in their affairs whatever we do its never ok. If we interfere it's us meddling, if we let dictators slaughter their population we're pricks. The power of the western world has given it responsibilities that will piss off people. This is not to say that the western world hasn't made huge selfish mistakes in the past that has helped build a bad relation with the middle east.

Additionally you say those extremists respect christianity. My ass they do. In hardcore islamic countries Christians are persecuted and even in belgium islamic publishers publish books that are supposedly "guides" for muslims in which is clearly stated christians and jews are inferior. If that's respect than you have a weird definition of respect.

If anything every day those fundamentalists give us new reasons to exterminate them. Because it is quite clear that's their desire towards us.

The problem is that a lot of those dictators have been western-backed for a long time, so yeah, at this point it's pretty much a lose-lose for us whenever we do something about the leadership there.

He's right about Islamists though. The ones in the Middle East mostly want to create Sharia-ruled governments in the Middle East, and want to get rid of western influence / American military bases / Israel. Hell, I believe one of the major reasons Osama bin Laden got pissed at specifically the US was because of its military presence established in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield / Desert Storm. There are some homegrown extremist cells, but those aren't really the terrorists that most people (at least in the US) worry about anyway.

As for Christianity, I believe Islamists sees it as a religion worthy of respect, but less so than Islam. Christianity and Judaism are both "religions of the book," but Islamists think Christians and Jews haven't caught up to the proper religion yet.

So, for them it's like Islam on top, Christianity and Judaism as second-class religions, and everything else as pagan garbage.

No, there is a clash between fundamentalists from all religions against those who would be more progressive in their outlook. Look at the US and the clash between the extreme religious nuts who want Christianity dominating everything, and those who say "Keep religion away from anything resembling government".

Islam in and of itself is no more a risk then Christianity or Judaism. It's the followers that are the problem.

Samuel Huntington

That's a name that cannot be left out of a discussion like this one.

image
The Clash of Civilizations is a theory, proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

Also, what 'Islam' says about the question;

A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.

The distinction is not quite as simple as it may at first appear. For one thing, the division is regarded as legal rather than theological. Dar al-harb is not separated from dar al-islam by things like the popularity of Islam or divine grace; rather, it is separated by the nature of the governments which have control over a territory. A Muslim-majority nation not ruled by Islamic law is still dar al-harb, while a Muslim-minority nation ruled by Islamic law could qualify as being part of dar al-islam.

Wherever Muslims are in charge and enforce Islamic law, there is also dar al-islam. It doesn't matter so much what people believe or have faith in, what matters is how people behave. Islam is a religion focused more upon proper conduct (orthopraxy) than on proper beliefs and faith (orthodoxy). Islam is also a religion that has never had an ideological or theoretical place for a separation between the political and the religious spheres: in orthodox Islam, the two are fundamentally and necessarily linked. That's why this division between dar al-harb and dar al-islam is defined by political control rather than religious popularity.

The nature of dar al-harb, which literally means "territory of war," needs to be explained in a bit more detail. For one thing, its identification as a region of war is based upon the premise that strife and conflict are necessary consequences of people failing to follow God's will. In theory, at least, when everyone is consistent in their adherence to the rules set down by God, then peace and harmony will result.

More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that "war" is also descriptive of the relationship between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. Muslims are expected to bring God's word and God's will to all of humanity, by force if absolutely necessary, and attempts by the regions in dar al-harb to resist or fight back must be met with a similar amount of force. While the general condition of conflict between the two may stem from the Islamic mission to convert, specific instances of warfare are believed to be always due to the immoral and disordered nature of dar al-harb regions.
http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicextremism/a/daralharb.htm

And about the current situation;

The conflict between Arabs and Israelis, Muslims and Jews, is not the only major conflict between Muslims and others. On the contrary, military contests along the borders of lands dominated by Muslims are pervasive. Samuel Huntington, a Harvard political scientist, observed, "The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts ... have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims. While at the macro or global level of world politics, the primary clash of civilizations is between the West and the rest, at the micro or local level it is between Islam and the others."[27] Among the conflicts enumerated by Huntington are the Bosnians versus the Serbs, the Turks versus the Greeks, Turks versus Armenians, Azerbaijanis versus Armenians, Tatars versus Russians, Afghans and Tajiks versus Russians, Uighurs versus Han Chinese, Pakistanis versus Indians, Sudanese Arabs versus southern Sudanese Christians and animists, and northern Muslim Nigerians versus southern Christian Nigerians.

Indeed, everywhere along the perimeter of the Muslim-ruled bloc, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. Muslims may only comprise one-fifth of the world's population, but in this decade and the last, they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than the people of any other civilization.
http://www.meforum.org/1813/the-middle-easts-tribal-dna

If there was ever an actual war between the Western world countries and the Islamic world, then in a matter of weeks there would no longer be an Islamic world.

Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism (particularly when it comes to sexual values, equal opportunities for both genders, and freedom of - and especially from - religion). So it's automatically in conflict with some of the most treasured aspects of contemporary western thought. But too claim that a bunch of powerless countries whose culture haven't evolved in 400 years are at war with us is more than a bit hyperbolic and paranoid.

What's been most interest about the Breivik case is his statement that he turned to violence because it wasn't possible to have a debate about Islam and immigration within the frames of Norwegian democracy (probably a reference to the debate climate in the other scandinavian countries where everyone who even suggest that immigration cause problems are branded racists, and perhaps to a lesser extent hatespeech laws). Yet another example, this time from the horse's own mouth, that suppression of Freedom of Speech will never solve anything, but on the contrary exacerbate the problem by driving it underground to fester and grow, radicalising those who aren't allowed voice. Hopefully Norway found its hatespeech laws and politically correct debate climate worth the price of ostracising this madman into action.

Imperator_DK:
Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism (particularly when it comes to sexual values, equal opportunities for both genders, and freedom of - and especially from - religion).

What? Imperator_DK just making up wild claims about Islam without having a clue what he's talking about? That's unpossible!

What's been most interest about the Breivik case is his statement that he turned to violence because it wasn't possible to have a debate about Islam and immigration within the frames of Norwegian democracy

So you're saying it's not Breivik's fault that he chose to be violent? That he was compelled to violence because he would have been called a bigot for spreading hate-speech about Muslims? Wow. Kinda takes my breath away that on this supposedly reasonable, progressive board someone would apologize for a modern bigoted mass-murderer.

Oh, and as for the rest of the thread: This notion of a Clash of Civilizations is 100% bollocks. It's just a lie concocted by people who want an excuse to hate.

Katatori-kun:
...
What? Imperator_DK just making up wild claims about Islam without having a clue what he's talking about? That's unpossible!

What's the legislation of a country where Muslims constitute a mere 15 % of the population have to do with Islam's compatibility with western norms?

Find a country where they are in majority and hence have any actual power to influence the culture, then we can talk.

So you're saying it's not Breivik's fault that he chose to be violent? That he was compelled to violence because he would have been called a bigot for spreading hate-speech about Muslims? Wow. Kinda takes my breath away that on this supposedly reasonable, progressive board someone would apologize for a modern bigoted mass-murderer.

Obviously he is personally responsible for his actions (unless he's medically insane), same as any other adult.

I'm merely pointing out the factors that radicalized him into choosing the path he did; much like the people who oppose the ostracising of young Muslim men are so prone to do. Breivik should've been legally and culturally allowed to give voice to his paranoid ethnocentrism, so that it may have been discovered, argued against, and then ultimately denounced on the basis of such argument.

A culture that prevents discussion of the topic, by labelling everyone who dares to breach the subject bigots from the outset, will only ensure that he'll never meet anything to challenge his world view, and that words will never be heard unless backed up by action (he committed his crimes to spark awareness of his Manifesto, stating that he felt there was no other way to spread the word).

As explanations are never excuses, this have no effect on the unethical and criminal nature of the deeds Breivik committed. But it does show that attempts to suppress hatespeech are not only futile (...just look at the Weimar republic, which had one of the most extensive hatespeech legislations of its time), but can in fact help convert words into action. All taboos are harmful, and this one is no exception.

Though as I - and the forum health meter - seem to recall you being quite fond yourself of calling other people bigots and such in attempt to stifle the debate and expression of viewpoints, I don't expect we'll find any common ground here.

generals3:

That is a very narrow analysis of the situation. Fundamentalists have expanded the war beyond that of their own sovereignity. Those Shariah4UK/Belgium/etc. organizations are trying to take down our founding principles in western countries.

Those aren't related to ones in the Middle East however.

generals3:

And when it comes to meddling in their affairs whatever we do its never ok. If we interfere it's us meddling, if we let dictators slaughter their population we're pricks. The power of the western world has given it responsibilities that will piss off people. This is not to say that the western world hasn't made huge selfish mistakes in the past that has helped build a bad relation with the middle east.

Of course the West has made mistakes,they've made many huge mistakes, it created the huge mess that it is today, making up countries like Lebanon or Iraq for their own convenience and when the Arabs protest it peacefully the West suppress the protests and when they fight guerrilla wars they just fire on everyone including civilians indiscriminately like they did in Iraq and Syria (and indeed exactly like what's going on in Syria). The west was responsible for throwing away the Palestinians as mere Arabs to be integrated into Lebanon Jordan Egypt and Syria from 1948 to 1974, making the PLO have to commit Terrorist attacks to get any attention (attacks that are juvenile in comparison to Hamas, generally just hijacking airplanes, landing the airplanes at one of their airfields then evacuating all the passengers and then blowing up the airplanes, then turning themselves in),the West was responsible for setting up the State of Israel with no input from the native Palestinians even though the Jews who made up the fighting forces tended to be terrorists, but more importantly Islamists hate how much the West inserted its culture into the Middle East, which they view as morally inferior and responsible for these dictatorships in the Middle East (those dictatorships are the ones they focus their energy on).

generals3:

Additionally you say those extremists respect christianity. My ass they do. In hardcore islamic countries Christians are persecuted

Um what's hardcore? Because most of the Islamic countries are secular dictatorships which actively fight against Islamist trends.

generals3:

and even in belgium islamic publishers publish books that are supposedly "guides" for muslims in which is clearly stated christians and jews are inferior. If that's respect than you have a weird definition of respect.

Inferior=/=Hatred. Yes they view their religion as the only true path to god, Christians and Jews have that as well. It's like saying I hate Monkey's because I think they're not able to do what a human can.

generals3:

If anything every day those fundamentalists give us new reasons to exterminate them. Because it is quite clear that's their desire towards us.

Good luck. Because Syria, Egypt,Iraq, Jordan have all tried that and it has failed miserably as it just increases their influence.

Imperator_DK:

Katatori-kun:
...
What? Imperator_DK just making up wild claims about Islam without having a clue what he's talking about? That's unpossible!

What's the legislation of a country where Muslims constitute a mere 15 % of the population have to do with Islam's compatibility with western norms?

Whoops! Just one post in and you're already backpedaling. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the thread. Your claim was "Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism." Singapore is a secular, liberal country where there is Islam. Ergo, your claim is incorrect. Admitting you spoke incorrectly here would make you look better than trying to shift the goal-posts and hoping we don't all notice that you're now making a different claim and trying to pass it off as the old one.

Find a country where they are in majority and hence have any actual power to influence the culture, then we can talk.

But whatever, let's play your little revisionism game. How about Turkey? 97.8% of the country is Muslim according to some polls, and yet the country is fiercely secular- Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution.

Oops! You're zero for 2! Care to pull another baseless claim out of your ass and go for 3?

I'm merely pointing out the factors that radicalized him into choosing the path he did; much like the people who oppose the ostracising of young Muslim men are so prone to do.

Obviously I'm not Norwegian and don't have conversations about Norwegian immigration very often. But I suspect you're once again making up stuff here. I am extremely skeptical any such arguments comparable to your apology for Breivik are made. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by providing evidence where someone has tried to argue that not allowing Muslim men to spread hatred and abuse at non-Muslims causes them to be radicalized? Because if you can't do that, then the arguments aren't comparable at all. In which case all you're doing is defending a mass-murderer because he hates the same people you hate.

A culture that prevents discussion of the topic, by labelling everyone who dares to breach the subject bigots from the outset,

Ah, here we go. Your objection isn't to a real ban on speech. It's to the speech being accurately identified as bigotry.

Sorry, that's what free speech is. If you're afraid to say something bigoted because you're afraid of being called a bigot, your free speech hasn't been restricted.

Katatori-kun:
Ah, here we go. Your objection isn't to a real ban on speech. It's to the speech being accurately identified as bigotry.

Sorry, that's what free speech is. If you're afraid to say something bigoted because you're afraid of being called a bigot, your free speech hasn't been restricted.

A climate in which one side of the debate cannot even be bothered to debate, and would rather ostracize those of dissenting opinions can be just as harmful as a ban on speech with legal authority.

J.S. Mill said

There is a class of persons (happily not quite so numerous as formerly) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned. Where their influence prevails, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be rejected wisely and considerately, though it may still be rejected rashly and ignorantly; for to shut out discussion entirely is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument. Waving, however, this possibility-assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument-this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth. (On Liberty, Ch. 2 paragraph 22)

Much opinion in the Western world about anti-immigrant racism does seem to be of this class of ill-founded belief, however accurate the ill-founded belief might be. Rather than confront the arguments, the arguments are dismissed as being of a certain disreputable character, as if 'racist' may as well mean 'false'. Indeed, one often gets the impression that the truth of the conclusion does not even matter if it is deemed racist; better (hypothetically) to be wrong than racist. If you asked the average person to articulate why racism is bad, I don't think they could do it very persuasively; that is not because they are wrong, but because public discussion of racism is not generally anything more than condemnation of opinions without taking whether those opinions might be justified as a serious question. Such a dismissal does not dissuade people who hold that opinion anymore than Rush Limbaugh calling something "liberal" convinces people to change their minds about anything.

Imperator_DK:
Islam is utterly incompatible with secularism and liberalism (particularly when it comes to sexual values, equal opportunities for both genders, and freedom of - and especially from - religion). So it's automatically in conflict with some of the most treasured aspects of contemporary western thought.

Katatori-kun:
But whatever, let's play your little revisionism game. How about Turkey? 97.8% of the country is Muslim according to some polls, and yet the country is fiercely secular- Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution.

Turkish secularism & Islam... Of course, they go hand in hand.

Ataturk, the great modernizer;

I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.

We do not consider our principles as dogmas contained in books that are said to come from heaven. We derive our inspiration, not from heaven, or from an unseen world, but directly from life.

It is claimed that religious unity is also a factor in the formation of nations. Whereas, we see the contrary in the Turkish nation. Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks' national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities.

Unsourced;
This is Islam, an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

In the years following 1926, Mustafa Kemal introduced a radical departure from previous reformations established by the Ottoman Empire.[72] For the first time in history, Islamic law was separated from secular law, and restricted to matters of religion.[72] Mustafa Kemal said
" We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and our legal institutions from the bonds which, even though they are incompatible with the needs of our century, still hold a tight grip on us.[73]

On 1 March 1926, the Turkish penal code was passed. It was modelled after the Italian Penal Code. On 4 October 1926, Islamic courts were closed.

The pre-Islamic culture of the Turks became the subject of extensive research, and particular emphasis was laid upon Turkish culture widespread before the Seljuk and Ottoman civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk

Secularism came - it was introduced by a non-religious man, who often wished that all religions were on the bottom of the sea, in direct opposition to Islam in Turkey.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked