6 ms·

"The reason this bath water is so dirty is that there is a baby in it" Policy matters. The right wing proposal is religious discrimination. In the US we don't

by sawthat 10y ago

"The reason this bath water is so dirty is that there is a baby in it" Policy matters. The right wing proposal is religious discrimination. In the US we don't make exceptions for religions we don't like. You don't have to like Islam. You can believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western pluralism. If you are American the moment you decide that's a good reason to start getting ok with religious discrimination is when you've given up on the very ideals this country was founded on.

kiba 10y ago
It is indeed precisely the wrong response. By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of civilization. Really, the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as normal crimes and let the police handle it.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of civilization. > the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as normal crimes and let the police handle it. Generally I agree, but I think it needs to be portrayed as peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    >peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions I completely agree! But it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had). It reminds me of programming or tooling debates, where someone jumps in with "well pick the right tool for the right job" or "all software has bugs". It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views like what's described here[1]. Reading those numbers, am I wrong to think it's a clash of civilization? 1: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Again, I'm asking in all honesty, no intention to offend, troll or provoke. I thank you all for your responses.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had). Lacking data, I'd guess that violence is proportional to power and not to the religious teachings. Janists don't control any large armies (yet). But if a Janist PM of India nuked Pakistan, would you be shocked? > It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views ... It's impossible that every group has equal problems, of course, but many other factors may determine the social views, as an example: Is the group concentrated in a certain region? I'll bet Mormons have a stronger belief in democracy and civil rights than (pick some religion concentrated in a non-democratic country). Is the group disproportionately poor or rich? Old or young? Well or poorly educated? Does it have a political structure that lends itself to certain types of behavior (for example, I don't know about religions, but for nations democratic structures generally yield more peaceful behavior)? etc. Think of it from a scientific basis: Can we control for other factors and isolate behavior down to religion? It seems almost impossible. And what is religion? Scripture? Teachings? The local clergy? Family? Personal beliefs - even those change. Within religions, there is enormous variety in observance and belief; very few if any blindly accept all their religion's teachings. It seems impossible to paint the individuals with a broad brush. And regardless, I think it's unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.
      - MichaelGG 10y ago
        >unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it. I'm not suggesting condemning anyone. Just condemning their views and making it publicly unacceptable, and perhaps letting that provide some advice to immigration policy. Similar to how the Mormon church was let know in no uncertain terms that racial discrimination was not OK, despite their religion.[1] A blanket ban (based on what, like you say, professed religion?) is extremely uncomfortable for exactly the reasons you lay out. But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and there that have "extreme" views. My only point in this whole thread is that the reason a lot of people might be leaning right is that the left politicians I've seen don't seem to be willing to admit there might be belief issues. No need to condemn anyone, just condemn certain views. Note some ideas are not OK, and that the US or EU's values need to win out. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism
- sbmassey 10y ago
  That is not a winning move, unless you are actually able to prevent the terrorist attacks, which seems unlikely unless you treat Islam differently to other religions
  - kiba 10y ago
    Of course it is. Those terrorists thrive on our own radicalization and fear. Every time someone shoot up an mosque, they win. Every time a politicians talked about banning Muslims from an entire country, they win. Anything they could do to create a 'us-versus-them' divide further their narratives and aims. The only thing we can do is move on, continue our lives as if they are not a threat at all, and let the police handle their duties. Quite frankly, there are lot of other things that kill people more than Islamic terrorism.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      You're right that terrorism is irrelevant as far as numbers. I do dislike how terrorism is used as a rallying cry. It's not a big enough thing to draw any conclusions; it's almost entirely an appeal to emotion. But at what point are the views of a group or religion a problem? Suppose a hundred million members around the world are in favour of death for leaving the group. Is that enough for western countries to say hey, that's not acceptable? To note that there may be a serious incompatibilities in beliefs?
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > Suppose a hundred million members around the world are in favour of death for leaving the group I'm not sure hypotheticals help here; it's hard to address issues that lack the dimensions of reality. > Is that enough for western countries to say hey, that's not acceptable? To note that there may be a serious incompatibilities in beliefs? In another post you said you didn't mean to troll, but I'll say that this question seems like one. Again, I'm not sure what this question would mean in reality. Each individual has their own beliefs; democracies outlaw certain behavior; I don't see what their religion has to do with it. A person either follows the law or not, regardless of their religion. We can't imprison or punish people based on some prediction of future behavior, and that prediction based purely on religion would be absurd. Maybe we should imprison all poor people, who commit crimes at a higher rate, or all men under the age of 30 - imagine how much lower the crime rate would be then! Also, all politicians.
daxorid 10y ago
It's not religious discrimination. It's ethnic discrimination couched as religious because it's a little more socially palatable.
drewrv 10y ago
> If you are American the moment you decide that's a good reason to start getting ok with religious discrimination is when you've given up on the very ideals this country was founded on. I hadn't really thought about it until you said this now, but freedom of religion in this country predates gender equality, racial equality, and even slavery. There were founders of this country who were ok with slavery but drew the line at religious discrimination!
hiram112 10y ago
1st Amendment of US Constitution regarding religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; This has nothing to do with restricting immigration of certain groups for WHATEVER reason. That is the prerogative of a sovereign nation. In fact, it was only since the 60's that the US allowed mass immigration from non European nations. If you are referring to Muslims whom are also US citizens, I agree with you. We need to very careful that Muslims in the US are treated with the same rights as anyone else.

by sawthat 10y ago

kiba 10y ago

It is indeed precisely the wrong response. By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of civilization. Really, the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as normal crimes and let the police handle it.

hackuser 10y ago
> By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of civilization. > the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as normal crimes and let the police handle it. Generally I agree, but I think it needs to be portrayed as peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  >peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions I completely agree! But it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had). It reminds me of programming or tooling debates, where someone jumps in with "well pick the right tool for the right job" or "all software has bugs". It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views like what's described here[1]. Reading those numbers, am I wrong to think it's a clash of civilization? 1: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Again, I'm asking in all honesty, no intention to offend, troll or provoke. I thank you all for your responses.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had). Lacking data, I'd guess that violence is proportional to power and not to the religious teachings. Janists don't control any large armies (yet). But if a Janist PM of India nuked Pakistan, would you be shocked? > It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views ... It's impossible that every group has equal problems, of course, but many other factors may determine the social views, as an example: Is the group concentrated in a certain region? I'll bet Mormons have a stronger belief in democracy and civil rights than (pick some religion concentrated in a non-democratic country). Is the group disproportionately poor or rich? Old or young? Well or poorly educated? Does it have a political structure that lends itself to certain types of behavior (for example, I don't know about religions, but for nations democratic structures generally yield more peaceful behavior)? etc. Think of it from a scientific basis: Can we control for other factors and isolate behavior down to religion? It seems almost impossible. And what is religion? Scripture? Teachings? The local clergy? Family? Personal beliefs - even those change. Within religions, there is enormous variety in observance and belief; very few if any blindly accept all their religion's teachings. It seems impossible to paint the individuals with a broad brush. And regardless, I think it's unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      >unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it. I'm not suggesting condemning anyone. Just condemning their views and making it publicly unacceptable, and perhaps letting that provide some advice to immigration policy. Similar to how the Mormon church was let know in no uncertain terms that racial discrimination was not OK, despite their religion.[1] A blanket ban (based on what, like you say, professed religion?) is extremely uncomfortable for exactly the reasons you lay out. But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and there that have "extreme" views. My only point in this whole thread is that the reason a lot of people might be leaning right is that the left politicians I've seen don't seem to be willing to admit there might be belief issues. No need to condemn anyone, just condemn certain views. Note some ideas are not OK, and that the US or EU's values need to win out. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism
sbmassey 10y ago
That is not a winning move, unless you are actually able to prevent the terrorist attacks, which seems unlikely unless you treat Islam differently to other religions
- kiba 10y ago
  Of course it is. Those terrorists thrive on our own radicalization and fear. Every time someone shoot up an mosque, they win. Every time a politicians talked about banning Muslims from an entire country, they win. Anything they could do to create a 'us-versus-them' divide further their narratives and aims. The only thing we can do is move on, continue our lives as if they are not a threat at all, and let the police handle their duties. Quite frankly, there are lot of other things that kill people more than Islamic terrorism.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    You're right that terrorism is irrelevant as far as numbers. I do dislike how terrorism is used as a rallying cry. It's not a big enough thing to draw any conclusions; it's almost entirely an appeal to emotion. But at what point are the views of a group or religion a problem? Suppose a hundred million members around the world are in favour of death for leaving the group. Is that enough for western countries to say hey, that's not acceptable? To note that there may be a serious incompatibilities in beliefs?
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Suppose a hundred million members around the world are in favour of death for leaving the group I'm not sure hypotheticals help here; it's hard to address issues that lack the dimensions of reality. > Is that enough for western countries to say hey, that's not acceptable? To note that there may be a serious incompatibilities in beliefs? In another post you said you didn't mean to troll, but I'll say that this question seems like one. Again, I'm not sure what this question would mean in reality. Each individual has their own beliefs; democracies outlaw certain behavior; I don't see what their religion has to do with it. A person either follows the law or not, regardless of their religion. We can't imprison or punish people based on some prediction of future behavior, and that prediction based purely on religion would be absurd. Maybe we should imprison all poor people, who commit crimes at a higher rate, or all men under the age of 30 - imagine how much lower the crime rate would be then! Also, all politicians.

daxorid 10y ago

It's not religious discrimination. It's ethnic discrimination couched as religious because it's a little more socially palatable.

drewrv 10y ago

> If you are American the moment you decide that's a good reason to start getting ok with religious discrimination is when you've given up on the very ideals this country was founded on. I hadn't really thought about it until you said this now, but freedom of religion in this country predates gender equality, racial equality, and even slavery. There were founders of this country who were ok with slavery but drew the line at religious discrimination!

hiram112 10y ago

1st Amendment of US Constitution regarding religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; This has nothing to do with restricting immigration of certain groups for WHATEVER reason. That is the prerogative of a sovereign nation. In fact, it was only since the 60's that the US allowed mass immigration from non European nations. If you are referring to Muslims whom are also US citizens, I agree with you. We need to very careful that Muslims in the US are treated with the same rights as anyone else.