27 ms·

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friend

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions and sects within the religion. I am Atlantean and go to an Atlantean church. I would not want to be called a Phoenician or Liliputian christian (made up names cause I don't want to offend anyone this early in the morning). Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that thing. As a total outsider your categories tend to be large, all encompassing and dominated by the loudest, most visible or most discussed sub category. For most westerners I think that sub category is, unfortunately radicalised Muslims. I'm fortunate that my coworker has given me a different perspective. I never believed all Muslims were radicalised but the true revelation for me was that my Muslim coworker was more like me than most non-muslims. It saddens me to see states in my country rejecting refugees from Syria. They are depriving their residents of potential friends and coworkers, potential spouses, neighbors or playmates that can give them a new perspective and help make their world a little larger and more interesting. Edit: I'd love to have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with me. (Not really making an argument but whatever) if you're down voting at least make a comment please.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tobltobs 11y ago
Have you ever thought about that mixing religion and politics might be a reason for the mess in the islamic states?
- iamthepieman 11y ago
  Yes absolutely. That plus a history of the area being a frequent host to proxy wars, a source of the worlds most demanded natural resource and the seat of three of the worlds most prominent religions.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    That is not an answer to my question, isn't it? There are lots of islamic states where your description does not suit and they are still a mess. And being oil rich didn't pose a problem for norway.
    - iamthepieman 11y ago
      Well technically the answer to your question is yes, I have thought about it. Which I did mention. Mixing politics and religion allows a faster decline into partisanship than even my country has seen. Religious leaders are often chosen for their devoutness and if they also have political clout like many Muslim clerics then it is a problem. I agree with you.
- anon4 11y ago
  Yes. Some people have even put it very poignantly https://vimeo.com/50531435 https://vimeo.com/50531435
cygx 11y ago
Of course it's not "all Muslisms". But those who claim "it's only the terrorists" or "it's all politics" do not grasp the scope of the problem, ie that globally speaking, a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society (which in principle represents nations with a total Muslim population of about 1 billion), 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam. To me, that's a scary number.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends. And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become victims of that 40%. Which in my opinion makes them just about as bad.
  - crusso 11y ago
    Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      That's an open door, I don't need to kick it in. It simply revolves around how you define terrorist and that horse has been beaten to death by now, I really don't see any reason to revive it just to beat it to death again.
      - tome 11y ago
        Wow, that's a complete cop out. Can you come up with any definition of "terrorist" where significant numbers of the one billion Chinese are commiting terrorist atrocities abroad, for example?
daemonk 11y ago
Is there an absolute definition to these categories though? I would be pissed off too if I was a Muslim and the radical minority hijacked the terminology and twisted it into something different. But to the radical Muslims, their definition is the correct one. How do you argue which definition is more correct than the other? By Historical precedence? By how we interpret the teachings? By popularity? It just seems like the definition of the religion itself is so amorphous that it is very susceptible to terminology hijacking. Would it do the Muslim population more practical good if they started distancing themselves away from the term "Muslim" and called themselves something different to make the distinction more impactful in the eyes of the public?
- bad_user 11y ago
  We Christians are separated into multiple denominations as well. You've got catholics, protestants and eastern orthodox as the biggest ones. The break between catholics and eastern orthodox happened in what is called "the great schism" in the 11th century. It has been attributed to theological disputes by the church, but nobody believes that, as everybody knows the dispute was entirely political in nature. And the blend of eastern orthodoxy from my country has its own flavor, compared to the the general eastern orthodoxy branch, as we've also picked up a set of local customs and traditions along the way. Consequently I think this is why, even though atheism is on the rise and even though I'm what you could call an agnostic, I happen to believe that religion is ultimately good, as it's a part of the local culture, the local culture being a huge part of our identity. But speaking of Christianity, our local christians tend to be a little xenophobe. And this I never understood why it happens, because you know, Christianity being about the teachings of Christ above all else, with those teaching inviting us first and foremost to love our peers and to be more tolerant. Skipping over the obvious that sometimes Christianity has nothing to do with the teaching of Christ, I personally think it's more about the true human nature. I believe that in essence a large part of the population is xenophobe, fearing and hating what is different and the material is always there to be exploited by a capable leader that can canalize all that potential hatred towards a common goal that can blur our ethics. After all, we should always remember the nazis, as that's the history that shows us how an otherwise civilized society can turn overnight if you press the right buttons, the anti-pattern we should steer away from. Which brings me to the point that I wanted to make. I see a lack of tolerance and hatred even in many atheists, having the same potential for evil as everybody else, atheists who otherwise claim to be more enlightened. Not all of them of course, just like how not all Muslims are jihadists. And so I don't think changing the naming would make that much of a difference.
drinchev 11y ago
Hello. I really like your honesty, courage and passion that I can sense from what you wrote. I don't want to sound offending, but you are saying that you are happy to discuss this and I have almost no contact with deep religious persons that are in IT, so I have a couple of questions. 1. Where is the boundary of your beliefs? I'm always trying to be polite with my dev co-workers, but for example if I write a flagged variable `$bible = false;` somewhere in my code, would you feel offended? 2. How do you mix the very science-based nature of IT with purely non-scientific phenomenon of religion? 3. Do you accept all scientifically proofed facts as true, that contradict ( might contradict ) your religious views? Like evolution of homo-sapiens, big bang, etc. 4. Do you accept all historically proofed facts as true, that contradict ( might contradict ) your religious views? Like politics behind let's say writing the bible, purpose of the religion and use as a tool of manipulation. Again really sorry if my questions sound offending not only to you, but to anyone else who reads this.
- iamthepieman 11y ago
  Hi these don't offend me at all but I think they deserve a more thoughtful response than I am able to give at this moment. I'll try to write a proper response during lunch today. Ok I've got some time now for a brief response. 1. There are none. And where there are I try to push them. I don't really see your example as a boundary issue. If other people malign or ridicule my beliefs it doesn't really bother me except to feel sadness for those people. 2. Acts 17:11 says: Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. It's out of context but basically its commending the Berean Jews for closely examining the teachings they were receiving from the apostles to verify that they were true. My faith demands rationality and my God is a rational God. 3. The Bible is not a science text book. The Bible is not a fairy tale either. I accept the bible as true understanding that it's purpose is not to teach me about scientific phenomenon. The travesty to me about evolution and the big bang is not that it is or isn't opposed to biblical teachings, it's that it is such a huge distraction from the true message of my faith. 4. No. This is the one I'm most likely to get into an argument about because history itself is subject to manipulation and interpretation. Has the bible been used to nefarious purpose? Yes. Is the bible's purpose nefarious? No.
rogeryu 11y ago
It's the same that ultra right or neo conservatives have more in common with ultra left or communists or ultra religious groups that go for political power. It's the extreme that makes them understand and appreciate eachother (or their cause) better. It's not that they like or support eachother, but knowing how the other thinks makes a difference. For them it's much more difficult to understand how moderate left or right works and can be influenced. There's a good chance that they fear "moderate" people more than those on the opposite end of their thinking, simply because they don't understand them.
conanbatt 11y ago
I have an honest question here. As a believer in the Christian faith, do you believe Angels exist? And all or some of the other supernatural tales from the bible and the faith? I am ashamed to admit that I didn't realize until I was well after 25 that followers of the faith, some of them, really believed in such beings and that priests of the Christian faith have to at least pretend to do so as well. I was raised catholic(I'm agnostic) and I always took "Adam and Eve" and Angels as tales and alegories, elements to tell a story.
- pionar 11y ago
  Fellow agnostic here, with religious friends and family. I've asked my dad this before (Catholic), and his response was (paraphrasing): Of course those stories are parables. There wasn't really a literal burning bush. But, whether the supernatural stuff is real, that's what faith is. Faith means that even when you can't see it, you know it's there because you can feel it. So you trust that what's there is what you think is there. That's the supernatural parts of religion to my dad (I think he was in his 60s when I asked him about that.)
  - conanbatt 11y ago
    I think the "smart" layman would take it as parable. But do priests?. If you asked Pope Francis if angels are real, what would he answer?
- crusso 11y ago
  I know plenty of people who literally believe in angels, the resurrection of Jesus, the turning of water into wine, the divine miracle of statues that appear to be weeping, etc. I have had countless discussions (ok, arguments) with people who believe in the literal Biblical story of Creation, the talking Satan snake, and the flood that Noah endured. They think that Evolutionary theory is a hoax and it's basically impossible to even get them to look carefully at convincing evidence like the fossil record, arctic ice samples, evolutionary history in DNA, or anything else that might point against their belief in the Creation myth. I think that it's a weakness of the modern Westerner to disregard the depth of religious belief in fanatics.
GFischer 11y ago
My country (Uruguay) tried integrating Syrian refugees, and it really didn´t work out. They had the usual integration problems (veil at school), there were big problems with domestic violence (they're used to hitting women and children), and they complained about salaries (which, to be fair, are very bad for non-trained people), they said they wanted to go to Europe specifically. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/09/150908_refugiados_sirios_uruguay_irm http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/09/150908_refugiados_... http://www.elpais.com.uy/que-pasa/refugiados-guerra-siria-desengano-uruguay.html http://www.elpais.com.uy/que-pasa/refugiados-guerra-siria-de...
SolaceQuantum 11y ago
If you're open to discussion I'd like a word less on the tenants of Christianity but more on the experience. Many highly conservative Christians are portrayed as angry, blind, even openly judgemental and rude. E.g. I read an article on NYT discussing some conservative Christians talking about how all gays need to be put to death. Do you feel judgemental or upset when people exist that are very wrong according to your morality? What is it like to be so drawn to God? Why God and no one else? How do you feel about people that don't perceive God or don't experience religious experiences that would point to God existing?
- iamthepieman 11y ago
  > Do you feel judgemental or upset when people exist that are very wrong according to your morality? No. Something I stil haven't found a way to explain is that I can disagree with someone or even think that someone's very personal decision is not a good one without feeling ill will towards them. One of the fundamental teachings of christianity that many non-christians (and some christians even) are not aware of is that a person does not need to be good to be a believer. A person who is convicted by god to believe in him IS good. So if every person on earth suddenly agreed with me and other christians on moral issues it would be a hollow victory without those people also understanding Gods love for them. So I do not focus my efforts on moralizing the world or turning it into a theocracy. I focus my efforts on being an example of Gods love to those around me. I cannot fathom that someone who is truly gripped by their faith would wish death upon anyone. To me, whatever those people say, they need to be converted as much as anyone else.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    I see, neat! Thanks for enlightening a bit. I still have a long way to go to understand Christianity, it seems.
    - emilecantin 11y ago
      It's quite simple, really: «Love one another». This is THE thing that Jesus said we should do, and it takes precedence over anything else. For example, sure, some minor book in the Bible might say that's it's kinda bad to be gay, but hating other people that disrespect a minor recommendation is contrary to the most important commandment.
krzyk 11y ago
Problem is that we don't know who is fleeing because of: 1. war 2. need to perform acts of terrorism 3. want to find better job We definitely don't want guys from the 2 group, and probably don't want the ones form the 3rd (they can use a traditional application for visa or something like that). Moreover the problem is that most of the fleeing are young, healthy males, which is quite suspicious, if you fear war you should get your wives, kids, parents out sooner than later. On the other hand groups 2 and 3 will mostly contain young, healthy males. That's why (probably most) people in EU would prefer the stance that Australia made to illegal immigrants (the "No Way" campaign). Another point is, why they are fleeing to countries that have completely different culture, they could as well go to ones that have similar (middle east or african ones).
- prawn 11y ago
  I think unattached young males will generally find it easier (physically) to flee. Stronger, fewer dependents. If they do have a family, many are trying to establish themselves before bringing a family over through safer means. I know if I'm relocating my family (even if just arriving at a train station on holiday and trying to find accommodation for the night), I'm the scouting party ahead of the rest. It is dozens of times harder doing that with a full family.
easytiger 11y ago
It is good you have self awareness about your religion. Do you admit both views are complete fallacy?
- dang 11y ago
  If I'm reading you correctly, you need to know that religious flamewars are not allowed here. The current thread is managing to stay surprisingly less hostile than it could have been. Let's keep it that way.
ionised 11y ago
He's probably more like you than most non-religious people because both of your belief systems are basically the same thing. They are Abrahamic (along with Judaism) religions and both feature the exact same God and many of the same practices and beliefs.
NotSammyHagar 11y ago
I think one reason a lot of conservative politicians are so fixated on worrying about Muslim religious laws having sway in the US (sharia law), is that they want christian laws to hold sway legally in the us.
noufalibrahim 11y ago
I'm a practising Muslim and can totally relate with this point of view. I had a similar experience which might interest you. My family is fairly observant. We pray regularly and our dress and behaviour clearly suggests that we're Muslim. We stayed in a small apartment about 5 years ago and had two families as neighbours. Both were Hindu but one was very observant - they were Brahmins and very strict in matters of food, worship, dress etc. The others were also Hindus but less observant. They weren't vegetarian and were, atleast apparently, less observant than the Brahmin couple. We all had young kids at the time and the Brahmin folks were much more comfortable leaving their daughter with us than with the other couple. This was mostly because we were conservative just like them and so could appreciate how strictly they followed their own dietary laws and things like that. They also trusted us to follow the same with their daughter. They weren't so confident with the other couple. Interacting with people in real life belonging to any group is very transformative and "online" relationships are not really a servicable substitute.
jdoliner 11y ago
> Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that thing. This is often referred to as the narcissism of small differences. It's one of those terms I found had a lot of applications once I knew it so I thought I'd share.
it_learnses 11y ago
There are many sects in Islam, but only two major ones: Sunni (90%) and Shia(10%). Shia in turn are divided into many different ones. Sunnis don't have any subdivisions. The salafist/wahabist movement within Sunnism stresses that people take everything in Islam literally and follow a very strict interpretation. When we talk about radicalism or a certain percentage of Muslims in the world wanting apostates being punishable by death, we are largely referring to sunni muslims.
kyleblarson 11y ago
Religions are nothing more than organized ignorance, so it is completely unsurprising that violence sprouts from them.
criddell 11y ago
I had it explained to me that if a sect comparable to ISIS where to arise in Christianity, it would basically be one that wants to enforce Old Testament rules. That's what ISIS is - a revival of early Islam.
greyfox 11y ago
what is atlantean? are you a subsect of protestant or catholic? i tried searching and couldn't come up with much results.
- cozzyd 11y ago
  He used made up sect names to avoid offending anyone.
- rory 11y ago
  The "made up names cause I don't want to offend anyone this early in the morning" caveat includes the name Atlantean.
  - redthrowaway 11y ago
    Just for shits and giggles, go ahead and google "atlantean church". Some fun stuff there. "When Jesus was born, it threatened the growing rule of the roman empire and catholic church" http://anunnakifiles.com/history/jesus-the-atlantean/ http://anunnakifiles.com/history/jesus-the-atlantean/
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Fundamentally (no pun intended) the entire situation is summed up by "Which laws can preempt which laws." Specifically are God's laws superior or are the laws of men superior? This question is the root of many violent clashes, especially where a smaller group disagrees on a preemption ordering than the larger group. In the US the most obvious example is the assertion that the constitutional rights of privacy between a woman and her doctor trump (or supercede) the rights of a group to declare abortion as murder. While many people will have different opinions on whether it is right or wrong to abort a pregnancy, when you read about bombing of abortion clinics or killing of doctors who have performed abortions, those perpetrators have stated that they believe they are enforcing God's laws above the laws of the land. The narrative is that God's laws are more important because they determine if you go to hell or heaven, whereas the laws of men merely incarcerate you. The challenge is that in the Medieval period people figured out that having laws under the control of a small group of people who were not checked by "the governed" gave rise to a conflict of interest which inevitably resulted in the law makers crafting advantages for themselves and their friends and to the detriment of the people. As a culture it is important to respect and have tolerance for people who choose to follow their own laws, and it is essential to protect those who would choose not to be bound by a "cultural law" because they have come to disagree with that group. If you decide you want to leave the Catholic church because you feel their strictures on divorce or birth control do not align with your own values, then it is the responsibility of the society you live in to protect your ability to leave such an organization on your terms. It is that last bit, letting people say "You know, I don't believe this is the right way to do things, I'm out of here." which is the essence of the rule of law having supremacy over the "laws" that a particular organization or group subscribe to. It makes those cultural laws voluntary rather than mandatory. And that undermines the authority of a religious figure to command your behavior and punish you for disobeying. We call it Freedom of Religion but really it is Freedom from Religion. The right to choose to participate in a religious group, and to stop participating if you feel that is the right thing. Sure the group can excommunicate you but that is the limit of their "right" to retaliate, basically to not let you back into their organization. There is nothing specific about this conflict of values. We have extremist Christian, extremist Jewish, and extremist Islamic groups. I would expect there are extremist Hindu and Buddhist groups as well although I don't know of any. But I do believe the battle here, both in the US with Christians and abroad with other religions, is about the idea that people should have the right to choose their own religion, and the right to choose no religion, and that the only laws which are mandatory to follow are the ones that we have arrived at collectively through a system where the government answers to the governed.
fineman 11y ago
The best quote I heard about the refugees is "they're fleeing the same problems and people you're worried about". I really hope we can protect refugees better than we have been. The problem with religion is that it isn't one thing. It's a general philosophy and creation myth to many, and to others it's day-to-day marching orders. That latter set is purely crazy - hearing voices, believing counterfactual things, and is often programmed to kill other groups or at least believe they need to die. If someone is a flat-earther in a battle with round-earthers you can take them up in an airplane high enough to see the curve of the Earth, or to space. But there's no counterproof that can be given to a religious killer. I think the reason people tend to see Muslims as a single group is that both camps (not Sunni vs Shia, but Sane vs Crazy) share the same sets of religious leadership and respect the same historical figures. For example, a southern baptist and a russian orthodox member would have nothing (religiously) in common. If one sect started murdering others, or picking at a weak justification in the bible for slavery, the other sect would condemn them. But Muslims (through the seemingly accepted method of death-threats from priests) control their religious world more tightly. To be a member is to at least profess to, if not actually believe, a specific set of things. There's no broad blanket condemnation for entire classes of horrible actions. The Saudis control Mecca and yet the "peaceful" muslims continue to travel there and enrich not only a kingdom but one that routinely executes people for rejecting minor religious traditions. It'd be like me saying I didn't support the Catholic molestation coverup and then going on a three-day Vatican tour and coming back with a pope hat. So while it may be a stereotype, it is a deserved one (Ask Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and Muslims should pay the price of changing it instead of insisting others simply trust them despite their memberships and alliances.
JonoBB 11y ago
I think the extent to which this sect is completely and utterly divorced from the rest of humanity was well captured in a piece by The Atlantic - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... > We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world. > We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature.
- will_pseudonym 11y ago
  I read an interesting article which found that it wasn't necessarily a religious sect for many of its members. It was more of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" after the aftermath of Middle East turmoil after post 9-11 military operations by the USA and others. Give it a read. It made a lot of sense. http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...
agumonkey 11y ago
Slightly similar, I bonded musically with people coming from totally different genre. But we shared an approach and a feeling toward music that made us share a lot. It's not uncommon after a number of phases, you start to relate on other planes of abstractions and not on first level constructs. If I may, I've also felt this religiousness coming up pretty much everywhere. Even if it doesn't impact us as much, architectures, languages (pure vs impure;), project practices, all of them are subject to cause emotional splits between people. We have to accept and live in peace with how people feel about anything as long as they do the same. Although balance is fragile. I wish more people reached that conclusion about thinking across groups and see what's beneath the surface of each person and community.
newman314 11y ago
You might find this interesting reading. Long article but a pretty easy read. http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story... Follow this with an interview with Reza Aslan on CNN which the anchors fail repeatedly at trying to digest things down to a soundbite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
bambax 11y ago
Great read (found moments ago on YC): http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-isis-strategy-chaos/?mod=e2this http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attac... In another article I read this month (but can't seem to find right now) it was explained that "terrorism" was mostly... a social network -- and the article above agrees with that characterization, I think. This whole mess doesn't have a lot to do with religion, Islam or otherwise; it's about young people trying to find meaning. It may sound absurd, preposterous, ridiculous, despicable even, to compare today's terrorists to peaceniks from the 60s, but dismissing them as "crazies" is even more wrong, and less helpful. (And I say this as a Frenchman having lived in Paris all my life).
tokipin 11y ago
well there's a few thousand religions out there in the world, even if you use granular criteria for what you consider to be different religions. and thats not even counting human history.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tobltobs 11y ago

Have you ever thought about that mixing religion and politics might be a reason for the mess in the islamic states?

iamthepieman 11y ago
Yes absolutely. That plus a history of the area being a frequent host to proxy wars, a source of the worlds most demanded natural resource and the seat of three of the worlds most prominent religions.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  That is not an answer to my question, isn't it? There are lots of islamic states where your description does not suit and they are still a mess. And being oil rich didn't pose a problem for norway.
  - iamthepieman 11y ago
    Well technically the answer to your question is yes, I have thought about it. Which I did mention. Mixing politics and religion allows a faster decline into partisanship than even my country has seen. Religious leaders are often chosen for their devoutness and if they also have political clout like many Muslim clerics then it is a problem. I agree with you.
anon4 11y ago
Yes. Some people have even put it very poignantly https://vimeo.com/50531435 https://vimeo.com/50531435

cygx 11y ago

Of course it's not "all Muslisms". But those who claim "it's only the terrorists" or "it's all politics" do not grasp the scope of the problem, ie that globally speaking, a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society (which in principle represents nations with a total Muslim population of about 1 billion), 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam. To me, that's a scary number.

jacquesm 11y ago
> a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends. And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become victims of that 40%. Which in my opinion makes them just about as bad.
- crusso 11y ago
  Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    That's an open door, I don't need to kick it in. It simply revolves around how you define terrorist and that horse has been beaten to death by now, I really don't see any reason to revive it just to beat it to death again.
    - tome 11y ago
      Wow, that's a complete cop out. Can you come up with any definition of "terrorist" where significant numbers of the one billion Chinese are commiting terrorist atrocities abroad, for example?

daemonk 11y ago

Is there an absolute definition to these categories though? I would be pissed off too if I was a Muslim and the radical minority hijacked the terminology and twisted it into something different. But to the radical Muslims, their definition is the correct one. How do you argue which definition is more correct than the other? By Historical precedence? By how we interpret the teachings? By popularity? It just seems like the definition of the religion itself is so amorphous that it is very susceptible to terminology hijacking. Would it do the Muslim population more practical good if they started distancing themselves away from the term "Muslim" and called themselves something different to make the distinction more impactful in the eyes of the public?

bad_user 11y ago
We Christians are separated into multiple denominations as well. You've got catholics, protestants and eastern orthodox as the biggest ones. The break between catholics and eastern orthodox happened in what is called "the great schism" in the 11th century. It has been attributed to theological disputes by the church, but nobody believes that, as everybody knows the dispute was entirely political in nature. And the blend of eastern orthodoxy from my country has its own flavor, compared to the the general eastern orthodoxy branch, as we've also picked up a set of local customs and traditions along the way. Consequently I think this is why, even though atheism is on the rise and even though I'm what you could call an agnostic, I happen to believe that religion is ultimately good, as it's a part of the local culture, the local culture being a huge part of our identity. But speaking of Christianity, our local christians tend to be a little xenophobe. And this I never understood why it happens, because you know, Christianity being about the teachings of Christ above all else, with those teaching inviting us first and foremost to love our peers and to be more tolerant. Skipping over the obvious that sometimes Christianity has nothing to do with the teaching of Christ, I personally think it's more about the true human nature. I believe that in essence a large part of the population is xenophobe, fearing and hating what is different and the material is always there to be exploited by a capable leader that can canalize all that potential hatred towards a common goal that can blur our ethics. After all, we should always remember the nazis, as that's the history that shows us how an otherwise civilized society can turn overnight if you press the right buttons, the anti-pattern we should steer away from. Which brings me to the point that I wanted to make. I see a lack of tolerance and hatred even in many atheists, having the same potential for evil as everybody else, atheists who otherwise claim to be more enlightened. Not all of them of course, just like how not all Muslims are jihadists. And so I don't think changing the naming would make that much of a difference.

drinchev 11y ago

Hello. I really like your honesty, courage and passion that I can sense from what you wrote. I don't want to sound offending, but you are saying that you are happy to discuss this and I have almost no contact with deep religious persons that are in IT, so I have a couple of questions. 1. Where is the boundary of your beliefs? I'm always trying to be polite with my dev co-workers, but for example if I write a flagged variable `$bible = false;` somewhere in my code, would you feel offended? 2. How do you mix the very science-based nature of IT with purely non-scientific phenomenon of religion? 3. Do you accept all scientifically proofed facts as true, that contradict ( might contradict ) your religious views? Like evolution of homo-sapiens, big bang, etc. 4. Do you accept all historically proofed facts as true, that contradict ( might contradict ) your religious views? Like politics behind let's say writing the bible, purpose of the religion and use as a tool of manipulation. Again really sorry if my questions sound offending not only to you, but to anyone else who reads this.

iamthepieman 11y ago
Hi these don't offend me at all but I think they deserve a more thoughtful response than I am able to give at this moment. I'll try to write a proper response during lunch today. Ok I've got some time now for a brief response. 1. There are none. And where there are I try to push them. I don't really see your example as a boundary issue. If other people malign or ridicule my beliefs it doesn't really bother me except to feel sadness for those people. 2. Acts 17:11 says: Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. It's out of context but basically its commending the Berean Jews for closely examining the teachings they were receiving from the apostles to verify that they were true. My faith demands rationality and my God is a rational God. 3. The Bible is not a science text book. The Bible is not a fairy tale either. I accept the bible as true understanding that it's purpose is not to teach me about scientific phenomenon. The travesty to me about evolution and the big bang is not that it is or isn't opposed to biblical teachings, it's that it is such a huge distraction from the true message of my faith. 4. No. This is the one I'm most likely to get into an argument about because history itself is subject to manipulation and interpretation. Has the bible been used to nefarious purpose? Yes. Is the bible's purpose nefarious? No.

rogeryu 11y ago

It's the same that ultra right or neo conservatives have more in common with ultra left or communists or ultra religious groups that go for political power. It's the extreme that makes them understand and appreciate eachother (or their cause) better. It's not that they like or support eachother, but knowing how the other thinks makes a difference. For them it's much more difficult to understand how moderate left or right works and can be influenced. There's a good chance that they fear "moderate" people more than those on the opposite end of their thinking, simply because they don't understand them.

conanbatt 11y ago

I have an honest question here. As a believer in the Christian faith, do you believe Angels exist? And all or some of the other supernatural tales from the bible and the faith? I am ashamed to admit that I didn't realize until I was well after 25 that followers of the faith, some of them, really believed in such beings and that priests of the Christian faith have to at least pretend to do so as well. I was raised catholic(I'm agnostic) and I always took "Adam and Eve" and Angels as tales and alegories, elements to tell a story.

pionar 11y ago
Fellow agnostic here, with religious friends and family. I've asked my dad this before (Catholic), and his response was (paraphrasing): Of course those stories are parables. There wasn't really a literal burning bush. But, whether the supernatural stuff is real, that's what faith is. Faith means that even when you can't see it, you know it's there because you can feel it. So you trust that what's there is what you think is there. That's the supernatural parts of religion to my dad (I think he was in his 60s when I asked him about that.)
- conanbatt 11y ago
  I think the "smart" layman would take it as parable. But do priests?. If you asked Pope Francis if angels are real, what would he answer?
crusso 11y ago
I know plenty of people who literally believe in angels, the resurrection of Jesus, the turning of water into wine, the divine miracle of statues that appear to be weeping, etc. I have had countless discussions (ok, arguments) with people who believe in the literal Biblical story of Creation, the talking Satan snake, and the flood that Noah endured. They think that Evolutionary theory is a hoax and it's basically impossible to even get them to look carefully at convincing evidence like the fossil record, arctic ice samples, evolutionary history in DNA, or anything else that might point against their belief in the Creation myth. I think that it's a weakness of the modern Westerner to disregard the depth of religious belief in fanatics.

GFischer 11y ago

My country (Uruguay) tried integrating Syrian refugees, and it really didn´t work out. They had the usual integration problems (veil at school), there were big problems with domestic violence (they're used to hitting women and children), and they complained about salaries (which, to be fair, are very bad for non-trained people), they said they wanted to go to Europe specifically. http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/09/150908_refugiados_sirios_uruguay_irm http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/09/150908_refugiados_... http://www.elpais.com.uy/que-pasa/refugiados-guerra-siria-desengano-uruguay.html http://www.elpais.com.uy/que-pasa/refugiados-guerra-siria-de...

SolaceQuantum 11y ago

If you're open to discussion I'd like a word less on the tenants of Christianity but more on the experience. Many highly conservative Christians are portrayed as angry, blind, even openly judgemental and rude. E.g. I read an article on NYT discussing some conservative Christians talking about how all gays need to be put to death. Do you feel judgemental or upset when people exist that are very wrong according to your morality? What is it like to be so drawn to God? Why God and no one else? How do you feel about people that don't perceive God or don't experience religious experiences that would point to God existing?

iamthepieman 11y ago
> Do you feel judgemental or upset when people exist that are very wrong according to your morality? No. Something I stil haven't found a way to explain is that I can disagree with someone or even think that someone's very personal decision is not a good one without feeling ill will towards them. One of the fundamental teachings of christianity that many non-christians (and some christians even) are not aware of is that a person does not need to be good to be a believer. A person who is convicted by god to believe in him IS good. So if every person on earth suddenly agreed with me and other christians on moral issues it would be a hollow victory without those people also understanding Gods love for them. So I do not focus my efforts on moralizing the world or turning it into a theocracy. I focus my efforts on being an example of Gods love to those around me. I cannot fathom that someone who is truly gripped by their faith would wish death upon anyone. To me, whatever those people say, they need to be converted as much as anyone else.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  I see, neat! Thanks for enlightening a bit. I still have a long way to go to understand Christianity, it seems.
  - emilecantin 11y ago
    It's quite simple, really: «Love one another». This is THE thing that Jesus said we should do, and it takes precedence over anything else. For example, sure, some minor book in the Bible might say that's it's kinda bad to be gay, but hating other people that disrespect a minor recommendation is contrary to the most important commandment.

krzyk 11y ago

Problem is that we don't know who is fleeing because of: 1. war 2. need to perform acts of terrorism 3. want to find better job We definitely don't want guys from the 2 group, and probably don't want the ones form the 3rd (they can use a traditional application for visa or something like that). Moreover the problem is that most of the fleeing are young, healthy males, which is quite suspicious, if you fear war you should get your wives, kids, parents out sooner than later. On the other hand groups 2 and 3 will mostly contain young, healthy males. That's why (probably most) people in EU would prefer the stance that Australia made to illegal immigrants (the "No Way" campaign). Another point is, why they are fleeing to countries that have completely different culture, they could as well go to ones that have similar (middle east or african ones).

prawn 11y ago
I think unattached young males will generally find it easier (physically) to flee. Stronger, fewer dependents. If they do have a family, many are trying to establish themselves before bringing a family over through safer means. I know if I'm relocating my family (even if just arriving at a train station on holiday and trying to find accommodation for the night), I'm the scouting party ahead of the rest. It is dozens of times harder doing that with a full family.

easytiger 11y ago

It is good you have self awareness about your religion. Do you admit both views are complete fallacy?

dang 11y ago
If I'm reading you correctly, you need to know that religious flamewars are not allowed here. The current thread is managing to stay surprisingly less hostile than it could have been. Let's keep it that way.

ionised 11y ago

He's probably more like you than most non-religious people because both of your belief systems are basically the same thing. They are Abrahamic (along with Judaism) religions and both feature the exact same God and many of the same practices and beliefs.

NotSammyHagar 11y ago

I think one reason a lot of conservative politicians are so fixated on worrying about Muslim religious laws having sway in the US (sharia law), is that they want christian laws to hold sway legally in the us.

noufalibrahim 11y ago

I'm a practising Muslim and can totally relate with this point of view. I had a similar experience which might interest you. My family is fairly observant. We pray regularly and our dress and behaviour clearly suggests that we're Muslim. We stayed in a small apartment about 5 years ago and had two families as neighbours. Both were Hindu but one was very observant - they were Brahmins and very strict in matters of food, worship, dress etc. The others were also Hindus but less observant. They weren't vegetarian and were, atleast apparently, less observant than the Brahmin couple. We all had young kids at the time and the Brahmin folks were much more comfortable leaving their daughter with us than with the other couple. This was mostly because we were conservative just like them and so could appreciate how strictly they followed their own dietary laws and things like that. They also trusted us to follow the same with their daughter. They weren't so confident with the other couple. Interacting with people in real life belonging to any group is very transformative and "online" relationships are not really a servicable substitute.

jdoliner 11y ago

> Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that thing. This is often referred to as the narcissism of small differences. It's one of those terms I found had a lot of applications once I knew it so I thought I'd share.

it_learnses 11y ago

There are many sects in Islam, but only two major ones: Sunni (90%) and Shia(10%). Shia in turn are divided into many different ones. Sunnis don't have any subdivisions. The salafist/wahabist movement within Sunnism stresses that people take everything in Islam literally and follow a very strict interpretation. When we talk about radicalism or a certain percentage of Muslims in the world wanting apostates being punishable by death, we are largely referring to sunni muslims.

kyleblarson 11y ago

Religions are nothing more than organized ignorance, so it is completely unsurprising that violence sprouts from them.

criddell 11y ago

I had it explained to me that if a sect comparable to ISIS where to arise in Christianity, it would basically be one that wants to enforce Old Testament rules. That's what ISIS is - a revival of early Islam.

greyfox 11y ago

what is atlantean? are you a subsect of protestant or catholic? i tried searching and couldn't come up with much results.

cozzyd 11y ago
He used made up sect names to avoid offending anyone.
rory 11y ago
The "made up names cause I don't want to offend anyone this early in the morning" caveat includes the name Atlantean.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  Just for shits and giggles, go ahead and google "atlantean church". Some fun stuff there. "When Jesus was born, it threatened the growing rule of the roman empire and catholic church" http://anunnakifiles.com/history/jesus-the-atlantean/ http://anunnakifiles.com/history/jesus-the-atlantean/

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Fundamentally (no pun intended) the entire situation is summed up by "Which laws can preempt which laws." Specifically are God's laws superior or are the laws of men superior? This question is the root of many violent clashes, especially where a smaller group disagrees on a preemption ordering than the larger group. In the US the most obvious example is the assertion that the constitutional rights of privacy between a woman and her doctor trump (or supercede) the rights of a group to declare abortion as murder. While many people will have different opinions on whether it is right or wrong to abort a pregnancy, when you read about bombing of abortion clinics or killing of doctors who have performed abortions, those perpetrators have stated that they believe they are enforcing God's laws above the laws of the land. The narrative is that God's laws are more important because they determine if you go to hell or heaven, whereas the laws of men merely incarcerate you. The challenge is that in the Medieval period people figured out that having laws under the control of a small group of people who were not checked by "the governed" gave rise to a conflict of interest which inevitably resulted in the law makers crafting advantages for themselves and their friends and to the detriment of the people. As a culture it is important to respect and have tolerance for people who choose to follow their own laws, and it is essential to protect those who would choose not to be bound by a "cultural law" because they have come to disagree with that group. If you decide you want to leave the Catholic church because you feel their strictures on divorce or birth control do not align with your own values, then it is the responsibility of the society you live in to protect your ability to leave such an organization on your terms. It is that last bit, letting people say "You know, I don't believe this is the right way to do things, I'm out of here." which is the essence of the rule of law having supremacy over the "laws" that a particular organization or group subscribe to. It makes those cultural laws voluntary rather than mandatory. And that undermines the authority of a religious figure to command your behavior and punish you for disobeying. We call it Freedom of Religion but really it is Freedom from Religion. The right to choose to participate in a religious group, and to stop participating if you feel that is the right thing. Sure the group can excommunicate you but that is the limit of their "right" to retaliate, basically to not let you back into their organization. There is nothing specific about this conflict of values. We have extremist Christian, extremist Jewish, and extremist Islamic groups. I would expect there are extremist Hindu and Buddhist groups as well although I don't know of any. But I do believe the battle here, both in the US with Christians and abroad with other religions, is about the idea that people should have the right to choose their own religion, and the right to choose no religion, and that the only laws which are mandatory to follow are the ones that we have arrived at collectively through a system where the government answers to the governed.

fineman 11y ago

The best quote I heard about the refugees is "they're fleeing the same problems and people you're worried about". I really hope we can protect refugees better than we have been. The problem with religion is that it isn't one thing. It's a general philosophy and creation myth to many, and to others it's day-to-day marching orders. That latter set is purely crazy - hearing voices, believing counterfactual things, and is often programmed to kill other groups or at least believe they need to die. If someone is a flat-earther in a battle with round-earthers you can take them up in an airplane high enough to see the curve of the Earth, or to space. But there's no counterproof that can be given to a religious killer. I think the reason people tend to see Muslims as a single group is that both camps (not Sunni vs Shia, but Sane vs Crazy) share the same sets of religious leadership and respect the same historical figures. For example, a southern baptist and a russian orthodox member would have nothing (religiously) in common. If one sect started murdering others, or picking at a weak justification in the bible for slavery, the other sect would condemn them. But Muslims (through the seemingly accepted method of death-threats from priests) control their religious world more tightly. To be a member is to at least profess to, if not actually believe, a specific set of things. There's no broad blanket condemnation for entire classes of horrible actions. The Saudis control Mecca and yet the "peaceful" muslims continue to travel there and enrich not only a kingdom but one that routinely executes people for rejecting minor religious traditions. It'd be like me saying I didn't support the Catholic molestation coverup and then going on a three-day Vatican tour and coming back with a pope hat. So while it may be a stereotype, it is a deserved one (Ask Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and Muslims should pay the price of changing it instead of insisting others simply trust them despite their memberships and alliances.

JonoBB 11y ago

I think the extent to which this sect is completely and utterly divorced from the rest of humanity was well captured in a piece by The Atlantic - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... > We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world. > We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature.

will_pseudonym 11y ago
I read an interesting article which found that it wasn't necessarily a religious sect for many of its members. It was more of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" after the aftermath of Middle East turmoil after post 9-11 military operations by the USA and others. Give it a read. It made a lot of sense. http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...

agumonkey 11y ago

Slightly similar, I bonded musically with people coming from totally different genre. But we shared an approach and a feeling toward music that made us share a lot. It's not uncommon after a number of phases, you start to relate on other planes of abstractions and not on first level constructs. If I may, I've also felt this religiousness coming up pretty much everywhere. Even if it doesn't impact us as much, architectures, languages (pure vs impure;), project practices, all of them are subject to cause emotional splits between people. We have to accept and live in peace with how people feel about anything as long as they do the same. Although balance is fragile. I wish more people reached that conclusion about thinking across groups and see what's beneath the surface of each person and community.

newman314 11y ago

You might find this interesting reading. Long article but a pretty easy read. http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story... Follow this with an interview with Reza Aslan on CNN which the anchors fail repeatedly at trying to digest things down to a soundbite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

bambax 11y ago

Great read (found moments ago on YC): http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-isis-strategy-chaos/?mod=e2this http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attac... In another article I read this month (but can't seem to find right now) it was explained that "terrorism" was mostly... a social network -- and the article above agrees with that characterization, I think. This whole mess doesn't have a lot to do with religion, Islam or otherwise; it's about young people trying to find meaning. It may sound absurd, preposterous, ridiculous, despicable even, to compare today's terrorists to peaceniks from the 60s, but dismissing them as "crazies" is even more wrong, and less helpful. (And I say this as a Frenchman having lived in Paris all my life).

tokipin 11y ago

well there's a few thousand religions out there in the world, even if you use granular criteria for what you consider to be different religions. and thats not even counting human history.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]