The problem with Islam

[wufwugy]

Every time people point out extremism in Islam, others say "it's not the majority". Bullshit. It is the majority. The religion teaches values that modern westerners otherwise scoff at.

Mainstream Islam preaches racism. Who here could ever date a Muslim without his/her family loathing it? How many Muslims would even think of dating a non-Muslim in the first place? Where are the Imams that preach acceptance and appreciation of good that people do regardless of where they come from? They're nearly non-existent.

Mainstream Islam preaches sexism. How many Imams preach that women can wear what they want? Where are the Imams preaching that women can do what they want with their lives similarly to men? They're nearly non-existent.

Contrast this to mainstream Protestantism, where the most important foundational distinction between it and every other monotheistic religion is that your relationship with your god is a personal experience. Emergent from this has come a religion that preaches peace and the golden rule. Emergent from this is a religion that loses so adeptly to secularism that it continually adopts secular narratives, so much so that for mainstream Protestant Christians, it's more important that a family member is a good person than that he is a believer, something unheard of in mainstream Islam.

In mainstream Islam, if you're not a believer, you're an other (*cough* apostate *cough*), whom the mainstream of believers implicitly condemn (and a significant proportion explicitly condemn). The religion is fucking stone age. Modern secularists adore bending Christianity over the barrel for every meager indiscretion it has. We'd whip its adherents if we got the slightest whiff of them mistreating anybody based on status. Mainstream Christianity would join us. But we turn the blindest of blind eyes to anything harmful propelled from the world of Islam. A majority of Muslims believe in oppression of women? Nevermind, what's that over there? A majority of Muslims think that their religion should be forced upon others? Nevermind, what's that over there? Islam has no Jesus figure? From which it could derive a message of peace like Protestantism has? But it does have a violent Mohammed as its central idol? Oh nevermind, what's that over there?

What would happen if the WBC started detonating cafes because somebody showed pictures of Jesus? Would the rest of the Christian world keep its mouth shut? No. Would the secular world run in fear? No. The Christian-secularist collective would rain fire upon the WBC, mounting heads on stakes to warn any that if they follow, they would meet a similar fate. Yet here we have the Muslim world saying mum's the word when innocents are slaughtered over pictures of their murderous, baby-rapist, slave-owning prophet. And we have the secular world hiding under its desks, only to peak its head out to yell at anybody who says any truthful thing about the most protected group in the modern world: Islam.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is dangerously close to hate-speech, and you need to humanize your perspective.

You should get yourself into a Mosque and meet some Muslim people. For your own sake.

Take a vacation to a Muslim country and hang out there for a bit. See the normal life passing day to day. See the people spending their time trying to work hard and take care of their loved ones.


***
Your tone of cultural isolationism is practically the same as any fundamental BS spouted by Islamic extremists.

How can 1/4 of the people of the world be that fooled so deeply? They are doctors and lawyers and mathematicians and economists. They are teachers and policemen and construction workers. They are people. You need to meet a few of them.

[wufwugy]

This is dangerously close to hate-speech, and you need to humanize your perspective.

You should get yourself into a Mosque and meet some Muslim people. For your own sake.

Take a vacation to a Muslim country and hang out there for a bit. See the normal life passing day to day. See the people spending their time trying to work hard and take care of their loved ones.


***
Your tone of cultural isolationism is practically the same as any fundamental BS spouted by Islamic extremists.

How can 1/4 of the people of the world be that fooled so deeply? They are doctors and lawyers and mathematicians and economists. They are teachers and policemen and construction workers. They are people. You need to meet a few of them.

designating points from others as hate speech from the get-go cuts yourself off from learning or seeing things from a different perspective. additionally, what i said is not hate speech. if that's hate speech, then merely making a point about a negative attribute of something is hate speech.

address the veracity of the argument. it would be awesome to have a discussion that questions the tenets of a dogma that supports murder over paintings. how utterly abhorred we would be if a significant subset of christianity killed people for drawing certain pictures and the mainstream set of christianity had a typically implicit acceptance of that response, yet when a subset of a specific other group does it, many rush to its defense. it's hypocrisy. why is islam so off limits? if christians bring out the verses in the bible about gays being abominations, they get crucified. but when similar happens in the muslim world, there is little outcry.

[OngBonga]

Every time people point out extremism in Islam, others say "it's not the majority". Bullshit. It is the majority.

I stopped reading after that.

Sure wuf. The majority of Muslims are extremists. That's over 0.75 billion people all frothing at the mouth, just waiting to blow themselves up. I think the girl who works at the store across the road from me is planting explosives in the bread. One day my toast will explode, killing me instantly.

Did you read that article I posted where Kenyan Muslims refused to be segregated by Islamic gunmen who wanted to shoot the Chrisitans on a bus? Two people died instead of tens.

There's a SHIT FUCKING LOAD of Muslims who are deeply troubled by the way their religion is portrayed, and there's a growing number of Muslims who are doing something about it.

You understand wuf that the nutcase extremeists (on both sides) want you to post shit like that? They want western people to blame Islam.

[OngBonga]

Ok I read more.

Mainstream Islam preaches racism.

You're preaching racism right now.

Mainstream Islam preaches sexism.

Sexism is not extremism. But, even so, Islam is far from the only establishment that preaches sexism. Furthermore, they are culturally brought up to believe the behaviour of our women is immoral. People are entitled to hold that view without being deemed "extremist".

Contrast this to mainstream Protestantism

Contrast this with a religion that has seriously oppressed the shit out of Catholics.

In mainstream Islam, if you're not a believer, you're an other (*cough* apostate *cough*), whom the mainstream of believers implicitly condemn (and a significant proportion explicitly condemn).

I haven't heard the population of Indonesia condemn me for not being Muslim. Citation please.

[rong]

If we can't use the example of a few gun toting bomb wearing murderous nutters to condemn the religion as racist or barbaric or whatever, you can't use a few dogooders willing to sacrifice themselves to save others in order to defend it either.

[OngBonga]

you can't use a few dogooders willing to sacrifice themselves to save others in order to defend it either.

Why? I'm attempting to point out that there are Islamic people who are as disturbed by extremsism as we are. This is not an insignificant incident. On the contrary, I see it as a turning point. When normal Mulsims reject extremsim this strongly, extremsists have a very serious problem. The illusion that this is Islam is fading.

[OngBonga]

Citation please.

Oh, in case you're thinking of citing the Koran, that's no more a citation than the Bible would be if I were to suggest all Christians condemn gays.

[rong]

Why? I'm attempting to point out that there are Islamic people who are as disturbed by extremsism as we are. This is not an insignificant incident. On the contrary, I see it as a turning point. When normal Mulsims reject extremsim this strongly, extremsists have a very serious problem. The illusion that this is Islam is fading.

Because giving an example of a few people doing it is no more evidence of it becoming the norm than giving an example of a few bomb wearers is evidence of all Muslims being extremists.

[OngBonga]

Well here's hoping that I'm right and it is a turning point. I'll be interested to see how things develop in Kenya at least. Change doesn't happen overnight. When Islamic extremists do terrible things, there's a barrage of condemnation from Islamic people on social media. Of course it's easy to talk on the internet, it's not easy to stand up when you're face to face with extremism. But this single incidcent might give others the courage to stand up. Hell, it might even cause the extremists to reconsider their views.

[spoonitnow]

You people are hilarious. You welcome your invaders with open arms and then wonder why things go all to shit.

#feelthebern!

[Renton]

Really don't understand what is so special about Islam that inspires the SJW outrage. They don't defend any other religion with this much fervor. I could post scathing criticism of evangelical Christians and there wouldn't be a peep from anyone, only nodding heads. I could talk about the reactionary pining-for-the-1950s worldviews of neocons and they would practically slip a disk nodding in agreement so hard. But as soon as wufwugy or Sam Harris criticizes a religion that openly wants to remake the world in the image of 600 AD, out come the pitchforks.

[spoonitnow]

Really don't understand what is so special about Islam that inspires the SJW outrage.

They're primarily not white males.

[OngBonga]

Really don't understand what is so special about Islam that inspires the SJW outrage.

The oppression of Islam is a fundamental reason why there's so many wars right now. Why do you suppose their nutcase extremsists hate us so much? Because we've been oppressing them for centuries.

I don't care about critisism of Islam as a religion, it is indeed ridiculous, in the same vein as any other religion; but when people blame Islam and Islam alone for terrorism and all the world's problems, they are compounding the problem. Spoon calls them invaders, or the enemy. The VAST majority of these people just want a better life for themselves and their family, whether they are trying to get into USA, or staying at home in Africa and Asia. But it is made all the more difficult for them to live in peace when they are seen as the enemy by supposedly freedom loving people on the other side of the world. And all it does is fuel the fire all the more, it gives them another reason to find fault with us.

So their religion oppresses women. Well, that's their fucking problem. If the women don't like it, stand up. Why is our culture any better? We treat women like slags. We oppress women in a different way. We let them think they have equality, when actually they still get paid less on average, and we lust over them like salivating dogs.

Maybe we should look to sort our own affairs out before critisising a culture that has existed for a very long time.

[a500lbgorilla]

The oppression of Islam is a fundamental reason why there's so many wars right now. Why do you suppose their nutcase extremsists hate us so much? Because we've been oppressing them for centuries.*

I don't care about critisism of Islam as a religion, it is indeed ridiculous, in the same vein as any other religion; but when people blame Islam and Islam alone for terrorism and all the world's problems, they are compounding the problem. Spoon calls them invaders, or the enemy. The VAST majority of these people just want a better life for themselves and their family, whether they are trying to get into USA, or staying at home in Africa and Asia. But it is made all the more difficult for them to live in peace when they are seen as the enemy by supposedly freedom loving people on the other side of the world. And all it does is fuel the fire all the more, it gives them another reason to find fault with us.

So their religion oppresses women. Well, that's their fucking problem. If the women don't like it, stand up. Why is our culture any better? We treat women like slags. We oppress women in a different way. We let them think they have equality, when actually they still get paid less on average, and we lust over them like salivating dogs.

Maybe we should look to sort our own affairs out before critisising a culture that has existed for a very long time.

*Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

[a500lbgorilla]

This is dangerously close to hate-speech, and you need to humanize your perspective.

You should get yourself into a Mosque and meet some Muslim people. For your own sake.

Take a vacation to a Muslim country and hang out there for a bit. See the normal life passing day to day. See the people spending their time trying to work hard and take care of their loved ones.


***
Your tone of cultural isolationism is practically the same as any fundamental BS spouted by Islamic extremists.

How can 1/4 of the people of the world be that fooled so deeply? They are doctors and lawyers and mathematicians and economists. They are teachers and policemen and construction workers. They are people. You need to meet a few of them.

This is dangerously close to censorship. You should be able to hear any array of opinions expressed, entertain them, criticize them, take away all they're worth and dismiss the rest.

To disallow any discussion because it somehow triggers a 6th sense hate-speech awareness is exactly how I do not want to be.

I'm not a fan of pretending there are unthinkable thoughts and if it truly is hate speech, then its another opportunity to understand a pernicious aspect of humanity.

[oskar]

those fucking faulty comparisons make my head spin.

Why is our culture any better? We treat women like slags. We oppress women in a different way.

Can you take a moment to think about what you're saying. You might as well say: Yeah, Genghis Khan raped a lot of women, but Star Wars Episode One was a terrible movie. Those things are not related. Even if one thing does sucks more, doesn't mean the thing we were originally talking about doesn't suck. There's no connection. You'll trick a lot of people into debating your point, which is even more idiotic and makes you think you're on the right track.

And no, it's not "their fucking problem" when they infringe the freedom of other people against their will by taking land, enslaving people and abusing women, that is officially your problem. If you are tolerating this, then you are part of the problem, I am sorry to say.

And Ong, I love you, but I have to say: we had a very healthy circlejerk going on here, and you're making it awkward. I'd rather go back to posting memes than to debate this bullshit, because in the end nobody here has any say in it anyway. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the freak show. Debating it is exhausting.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll criticize Islam from another angle:

First there was Yahweh in Judea. There were a lot of Gods back then, practically every small kingdom and tribe had a god or idol that protected their homes and for the Judeans it was Yahweh. Like their neighbors for instance, the Moab, they had Chemosh.



Then the Babylonians came and no more Chemosh and no more Yahweh only Marduk.



Then the Persians came and re-instantiated Judea after toppling Babylon and Yahweh was back.



Then Alexander the Great came and Yahweh was Macedonian for a few days, then his conquests were chopped up and Yahweh was under the administration of the Seleucid Empire.



Yahweh's hometown eventually becomes a vassal state of the Seleucid ruled by the Hasemonain Dynasty til they got swept up by the Romans.



Alright, I'm gonna pull up on this and ask - what do you think happens to a religion that endures through so much?

It inspires others to learn from its successes and mistakes:

Chiefly, Christianity and later Islam.

This is exactly why wuf's criticisms cut directly to the root of the matter. Christianity and Islam took different directions on the historic lessons of Judean Yahweh based on their specific needs at the time. Islam, specifically, was inspired by war with the West.

The Quran talks about Armaggedon taking place when the last warriors of the caliphate fight the last army of Rome.

"In Islamic eschatology as found in the Hadith, the area of Dabiq is mentioned as a place of some of the events of the Muslim Malahim (which would equate to the Christian apocalypse, or Armageddon).[5][6] Abu Hurayrah, companion to Muhammad, reported in his Hadith that Muhammad said:


The Last Hour would not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them).[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabiq#...ic_eschatology

(One of the reasons why there wasn't much contact between the Roman empire and China was because of the empires on the Arabian peninsula where Islam began. EDIT I checked, this is wrong. It was the Parthinian Empire and they weren't in Arabia, they were Western Asia.)

Muhammad was literally a General.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ns_of_Muhammad



It's coo-coo to think that Muhammad didn't intend for his religious teachings to further his military intentions and it's the whole clock to think that Muhammad's teachings don't still heavily influence Islamic belief today.

Muhammad's religion was and is used to build and control empires. Whatever else it provides, whatever else it learned through the historic learning of Judean Yahweh, it can never be separated from its chief purpose.

PS here was Muhammad's Empire when he died

[Hoopy]

Separating government/law and religion is key imo.

Historically Christianity had a lot of power (social/military/political). Today much less so (in europe at least) even though it still has plenty of followers.

I wonder if Islam will follow a similar path?

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is dangerously close to censorship.

Perhaps it is close to censorship, but it is in no way censorship. I made conscious choice to immediately set a counter-tone that championed humanism and education. I did not censor his post or make any personal attacks (unless advising him to expose himself to new perspectives for his own sake is considered an attack).

You should be able to hear any array of opinions expressed, entertain them, criticize them, take away all they're worth and dismiss the rest.

I did this.

Wuf's criticisms are laughable and do not come from a place of understanding, nor do they purvey a tone of seeking understanding. Contrast with your own tone, graphs and adding information to inform perspectives.

To disallow any discussion because it somehow triggers a 6th sense hate-speech awareness is exactly how I do not want to be.

Me, too. All discussion allowed.

I'm not a fan of pretending there are unthinkable thoughts and if it truly is hate speech, then its another opportunity to understand a pernicious aspect of humanity.

It is dangerously close to hate speech, and could well incite some nutjob to go on a full hate rampage. I wanted to counter his tone with something less abrasive to deter any such tomfoolery.

[OngBonga]

And Ong, I love you, but I have to say: we had a very healthy circlejerk going on here, and you're making it awkward.

haha this is outstanding.

[a500lbgorilla]

It is dangerously close to hate speech, and could well incite some nutjob to go on a full hate rampage. I wanted to counter his tone with something less abrasive to deter any such tomfoolery.

I remember someone asked me how I wanted to die and I said bleed to death because I remember someone describing it as slowly forgetting everything until you forget how to live - he had some hole pop open in his stomach and he almost bleed-out internally, but was saved through blood infusions, he talked about imagining a toothbrush but being fully unable to comprehend the purpose of the toothbrush.

Then someone berated me because any nutjob could come along and be inspired to suicide by my post.

I think he and you are wrong for the same reasons. I'm not here to keep nutjobs in line.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I only meant to keep nutjob posts from this thread; I only meant to set a tone.

I was on my way to bed. Sorry if it was a misguided thing to do.

[boost]

Really don't understand what is so special about Islam that inspires the SJW outrage. They don't defend any other religion with this much fervor. I could post scathing criticism of evangelical Christians and there wouldn't be a peep from anyone, only nodding heads. I could talk about the reactionary pining-for-the-1950s worldviews of neocons and they would practically slip a disk nodding in agreement so hard. But as soon as wufwugy or Sam Harris criticizes a religion that openly wants to remake the world in the image of 600 AD, out come the pitchforks.

I agree with all of this, except when you lump Harris' critiques in with wufwugy's.

This is dangerously close to censorship. You should be able to hear any array of opinions expressed, entertain them, criticize them, take away all they're worth and dismiss the rest.

To disallow any discussion because it somehow triggers a 6th sense hate-speech awareness is exactly how I do not want to be.

I'm not a fan of pretending there are unthinkable thoughts and if it truly is hate speech, then its another opportunity to understand a pernicious aspect of humanity.

I get the knee-jerk to call out SJW censorship-- but be careful to not do exactly what your accusing MMM of. Let's take wuf's argument point by point.

1) Mainstream Islam preaches racism, e.g. all the hot Muslim womens are off limits to wuf.

2) Mainstraem Islam preaches sexism, e.g. the Imam that openly supports women's rights is an extreme rarity.

3) Mainstream Protestantism, the predominant religion of the USA, where most of us live, has values that approximate the values of the culture of the place where most of us live.

4) Smorgasbord of borderline incoherent jabs framed by an overarching comparison to the pinnacle of tolerance, peace, and all that is good in the world: Protestantism.

5) Muslims don't condemn the abhorrent acts of fellow Muslims.

All of these claims are unsubstantiated, and while probably in the ballpark of truth are contaminated with hyperbolic rhetoric. Further, most of the claims beg dissenters to respond with anecdotes, since they themselves are anecdotal observations of the entirety of Islam-- how is this productive?

I think that's the gripe with wuf's post that had MMM sum it up as hate speech-- the rant lacks substance, is full of rhetoric, and does nothing to address a solution to the problem or even offer common ground on which a fruitful dialogue can be had. This is the difference between what Harris says on the topic and what wuf has to say. Harris gets lambasted for being a bigot, but it's because he uses extremely nuanced arguments, which often get turned into out of context quotes and inflammatory soundbites. I'm not missing any nuance in wuf's post. If it is an attempt to move towards a solution, it's a miserable failure, and if it's a purposeful success at anything, I think my value system is as far from wufwugy's as he proposes Mainstream Islam's is from that of western culture.

[a500lbgorilla]

Meh, tone never got too out of hand.

[Renton]

I remember someone asked me how I wanted to die and I said bleed to death because I remember someone describing it as slowly forgetting everything until you forget how to live - he had some hole pop open in his stomach and he almost bleed-out internally, but was saved through blood infusions, he talked about imagining a toothbrush but being fully unable to comprehend the purpose of the toothbrush.

Then someone berated me because any nutjob could come along and be inspired to suicide by my post.

I think he and you are wrong for the same reasons. I'm not here to keep nutjobs in line.

What are your thoughts on Bill O'Reilly's culpability in the murder of George Tiller? If you weren't aware, Tiller was an abortion doctor, and was mentioned specifically 28 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor. In many of the episodes, O'Reilly referred to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

I agree with you 100%, but I think one's position on O'Reilly is the true test of that belief.

[boost]

I remember someone asked me how I wanted to die and I said bleed to death because I remember someone describing it as slowly forgetting everything until you forget how to live - he had some hole pop open in his stomach and he almost bleed-out internally, but was saved through blood infusions, he talked about imagining a toothbrush but being fully unable to comprehend the purpose of the toothbrush.

Then someone berated me because any nutjob could come along and be inspired to suicide by my post.

I think he and you are wrong for the same reasons. I'm not here to keep nutjobs in line.

I love this anecdote.

[a500lbgorilla]

I get the knee-jerk to call out SJW censorship-- but be careful to not do exactly what your accusing MMM of. Let's take wuf's argument point by point.

1) Mainstream Islam preaches racism, e.g. all the hot Muslim womens are off limits to wuf.

2) Mainstraem Islam preaches sexism, e.g. the Imam that openly supports women's rights is an extreme rarity.

3) Mainstream Protestantism, the predominant religion of the USA, where most of us live, has values that approximate the values of the culture of the place where most of us live.

4) Smorgasbord of borderline incoherent jabs framed by an overarching comparison to the pinnacle of tolerance, peace, and all that is good in the world: Protestantism.

5) Muslims don't condemn the abhorrent acts of fellow Muslims.

All of these claims are unsubstantiated, and while probably in the ballpark of truth are contaminated with hyperbolic rhetoric. Further, most of the claims beg dissenters to respond with anecdotes, since they themselves are anecdotal observations of the entirety of Islam-- how is this productive?

I think that's the gripe with wuf's post that had MMM sum it up as hate speech-- the rant lacks substance, is full of rhetoric, and does nothing to address a solution to the problem or even offer common ground on which a fruitful dialogue can be had. This is the difference between what Harris says on the topic and what wuf has to say. Harris gets lambasted for being a bigot, but it's because he uses extremely nuanced arguments, which often get turned into out of context quotes and inflammatory soundbites. I'm not missing any nuance in wuf's post. If it is an attempt to move towards a solution, it's a miserable failure, and if it's a purposeful success at anything, I think my value system is as far from wufwugy's as he proposes Mainstream Islam's is from that of western culture.

I knew I was bringing more to the party than wuf laid out in his post, as I thought I built on point 4 a bit.

But point 5 is an important one. It's not that they don't condemn each other for chopping off hands and stoning quran burners, so much as the apostasy point. You're born into the religion and you're stuck in it because if you don't follow it, you'll be killed, and following it means killing anyone who doesn't follow it.



"All we want is all the non-followers of Muhammed off the land."

[a500lbgorilla]

What are your thoughts on Bill O'Reilly's culpability in the murder of George Tiller? If you weren't aware, Tiller was an abortion doctor, and was mentioned specifically 28 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor. In many of the episodes, O'Reilly referred to him as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

I agree with you 100%, but I think one's position on O'Reilly is the true test of that belief.

I dunno enough about it. What happened?

[a500lbgorilla]

I will say this, rereading wuf's post, I don't even register shit that I know is bunkum. I only saw the intention to compare Islam with Christianity and point out the central point of apostasy, its origins, and how Islam perpetuates itself. But without the rant, where would I have found reason to post about Yahweh?

Plus, if anyone was half a decent troll around here, they might point out that George Washington was literally a general and clearly influenced the greatest Nation in History and force me to redouble the effort.

[boost]

I will say this, rereading wuf's post, I don't even register shit that I know is bunkum. I only saw the intention to compare Islam with Christianity and point out the central point of apostasy, its origins, and how Islam perpetuates itself. But without the rant, where would I have found reason to post about Yahweh?

Plus, if anyone was half a decent troll around here, they might point out that George Washington was literally a general and clearly influenced the greatest Nation in History and force me to redouble the effort.

Right, I mean, here's the thing, I don't think wuf shouldn't have made the post-- I'm glad he did, because it affords us the opportunity to all engage on a rather difficult topic. Like, I'm pretty sure I harbor very similar concerns regarding Islam as wuf, and I want to believe that he is interested in reaching a solution that will alleviate us of our concerns in a way that improves the lot of humanity at the same time. I just think, if we do share the same concerns and goals, he did a shit job at expressing the former and moving towards the latter.

p.s. wuf, I keep referring to you in the third person, and it really bugs me, but I can't figure how to reference the OP, reply to 'rilla, and not treat you as if you aren't part of the discussion. My apologies.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, we're here now and the only reason to have this discussion is in discovery of new facts and perspectives.

I remember that article written by an American about why Arab armies can not compete in this day and age - because in the west, we equip our lowliest solider with complete knowledge and ability to complete the mission and in the mid-east, they hoard information like it's power at the top. This lead to teams trying to man big guns without the resources or understanding to maintain them and an army poorly able to counter Western might.

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

That's a difference in culture.

They can only show any strength these days through terrorism.

We're not oppressing Islam. They're just not up to snuff.

[Renton]

I dunno enough about it. What happened?

Famous/infamous late-term abortion doctor in Kansas. He was the victim of violence several times, including being shot multiple times in 1993, but he survived that. Eventually he was murdered following tons of bad press on Fox news, much of which was the O'Reilly Factor. The question is do you see any issue with O'Reilly using inflammatory language on a show that has extremely good ratings and is sure to be viewed by religious extremists prone to commit violence against abortion clinics? The issue is the power that he has with his platform. It's a bit different than us nobodies criticizing Islam on a web forum.

[OngBonga]

The fuck, how dare you call me a nobody.

[a500lbgorilla]

Famous/infamous late-term abortion doctor in Kansas. He was the victim of violence several times, including being shot multiple times in 1993, but he survived that. Eventually he was murdered following tons of bad press on Fox news, much of which was the O'Reilly Factor. The question is do you see any issue with O'Reilly using inflammatory language on a show that has extremely good ratings and is sure to be viewed by religious extremists prone to commit violence against abortion clinics? The issue is the power that he has with his platform. It's a bit different than us nobodies criticizing Islam on a web forum.

Yes, but mostly no.

I was working on a project for an authority that had really ballsed up how it issued out work to upgrade their system. Basically, they brought us on to upgrade their old system and someone else on to install the next-gen stuff and they were incompatible in a lot of ways. The intent was to have the tried-and-true old system as a back up when the new system broke-down, but there were philosophical differences.

Anyway, they eventually decided to drop us off and just go with the newer system as the sole-controller. I say this because toward the end of my work on that project, we got a new project management team who were pressing us to get packages out the door regardless of their completeness. Hindsight tells me it's because they could read the writing on the walls and knew the work would never be looked at but would be billed. I refused. I wouldn't send anything out until it was level 5 done.

Bill O'Reilly is responsible for what he did in that same vein. He spoke his words, he hammered his fists, he inflamed his rhetoric, and so the consequences are his. A man in his position should have some sense of the cause-and-effect nature of his work and his words, and he shouldn't commit to any work that he himself doesn't approve in some manner.

At the same time, the nature of a hierarchy is that blame is equal to authority and Bill O doesn't get to have a show on the quality of his character alone. He's allowed to have a show because it fits into the overall plan and direction of the organization he's a part of. Whoever saw his fire-brand narrative as a product they wanted to own and push holds the lion's share of blame. Whoever looked over Bill O's work and saw fit to afford it is more responsible than he is.*

The least blame goes to the bumpkins who fell for it. They can't even maintain the basic health of mind to see through his words and hatred and so what good does it do to burden those who can't even do the least with any blame?

*which is why conquerors like Muhammad are so interesting. How cool is it when you afford your own work?

[wufwugy]

I could talk about the reactionary pining-for-the-1950s worldviews of neocons and they would practically slip a disk nodding in agreement so hard.

Great imagery. Lol'd fo realsies

[wufwugy]

he did a shit job at expressing the former and moving towards the latter.

Don't I always?

A graduate student writing his master's thesis was dissatisfied with it and was running late. His professor told him "you can either have a perfect thesis or a finished thesis".

A successful writer once said that a common pitfall among writers is the attempt to explain everything.

So, I made a few points I wanted then submitted.




On a different note, this topic is a particularly difficult one in which to convince people of opposing views. One of the reasons is that the mainstream narrative has already gotten so out to lunch that to make any real progress, people have to strip away some of the foundations of their beliefs, which is the hardest thing to do.

The type of thing I'm getting at is that we have a religion where murder is a common response to showing a picture of a certain person. The mainstream response from others in that religion to that murder is a mix of explicit and implicit support. The western world mostly kowtows to this, yet if it were any other religion, heads would roll. These facts alone should be the end of the story, in that they're enough to show that we really do treat Islam differently than everything else.

But it's not the end of the story. Maybe because the narrative has been so internalized. I don't know.

As Rilla pointed out, I think it's important to contrast Islam to Protestantism and secularism so that we can see this divergence in logic. I added other brief points about racism and sexism that Islam teaches, but for some reason, that stuff is kinda just brushed aside and I get called a racist and sexist instead.

The reason this is important is because the western world at large throws the baby out with the bathwater when it brushes aside all the negatives Islam teaches just because westerners don't want to accidentally mistreat a religion. The bottom line is that mainstream Islam preaches extremist views about women, yet we ignore that because when even more extremist Islamic views are engaged (like gang rape of a 14 year old), defenders immediately say that mainstream Islamists are a-okay. No, they're not a-okay. They may not explicitly teach to gang rape women, but they teach a tremendous amount of other violent and sexist things towards women that are also extreme.

If Bubba Joe from Florida treated women the way mainstream Islam teaches, he'd be a pariah and most likely in prison.

[wufwugy]

Ong it seems the main issue you have is that I called non-terrorists "extremist".

I think the word is just fine to use to describe types of behaviors that the western secular world considers extreme. I think the extremist fundamentalist Christian belief that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt is extremist. I don't use the word as synonymous with terrorism at all.

Calling it fundamentalist is euphemistic. Calling it extremism is calling it what it is. IMO

[wufwugy]

As for the idea that Islamic extremism is a response to western aggression, there just isn't much to support that. Let me use one of my favorite people, Thaddeus Russell, to illustrate. It's a situation in which I think he's wrong.

On his latest JRE appearance, he discussed how western aggression in the Middle East causes blowback aggression upon the West from many in the Middle East. This is okay so far. But then he said that this is why it is wrong for the West to be aggressive in the Middle East. He said we need to remove ourselves from the Middle East then see what happens. This is where he gets mistaken.

This is because the reason we're in the Middle East in the first place is national and global security against violent extremism. A secondary reason is the human rights violations. Thaddeus' solution ignores this, and it would inadvertently let people who are hurting innocents to continue to do so.

So, it doesn't matter if there is blowback, because the blowback is coming from people who need to be stopped regardless of whether or not they conduct blowback. If a guy runs into a shopping market and starts shooting people, you don't say it's wrong for somebody to stop him since that will create blowback on that person by way of the gunman shooting that person. You say he needs to be stopped regardless of his response to being stopped.

[wufwugy]

The muslims in America are typically more educated than other groups (that especially includes their women, something like 90% go to college). The muslims in America marry nonmulims at a rate similar to other cross group marriages

American Muslims are statistical outliers. Most immigrant groups in America are. Also they are getting rapidly secularized, like Catholics, Jews, Protestants, etc. have also been.

I'm not sure how far down this path I want to go, as it gets into the muddy territory between theological racism and cultural familiarity.

I do think it's a little ridiculous how many subgroups are given a pass on their own versions of racism and sexism, while others do not.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How many Extremist Islamic Terrorists do you think there are in the world?
A couple-few tens of thousand? Maybe a couple-few hundred thousand?

There are ~1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

I'm fine with hating the terrorists. I'm not fine with dehumanizing almost 1/4 of the people of the world.

It simply doesn't hold up to any reason to imagine that 1/4 of the world are brutal, violent murders and rapists. The number of incidents would be off the charts more common than what we are seeing.

Furthermore... I mean it when I say to spend some time with Muslim people. Talk to them about your worries and concerns. I did. It affected me. I cannot share that, other than to say that it was eye-opening.

Attend a Ramadan feast. Talk to people. Ask them about Jihad. Ask them about oppression of women. Ask them about what is the meaning of human decency and who deserves it. I feel confident that you will find very few murderous or rapey answers.

[wufwugy]

Wuf's criticisms are laughable and do not come from a place of understanding, nor do they purvey a tone of seeking understanding. Contrast with your own tone, graphs and adding information to inform perspectives.

The irony is that you're doing what you've accused of me, while I never did what you accused of me.

It is dangerously close to hate speech

No it isn't. This extreme jump to defense of something that is otherwise unfathomable is part of my critique in the first place. I point out negatives that are otherwise widely understood as negatives yet somehow it makes me a bigot.

[wufwugy]

How many Extremist Islamic Terrorists do you think there are in the world?
A couple-few tens of thousand? Maybe a couple-few hundred thousand?

There are ~1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

I'm fine with hating the terrorists. I'm not fine with dehumanizing almost 1/4 of the people of the world.

It simply doesn't hold up to any reason to imagine that 1/4 of the world are brutal, violent murders and rapists. The number of incidents would be off the charts more common than what we are seeing.

Furthermore... I mean it when I say to spend some time with Muslim people. Talk to them about your worries and concerns. I did. It affected me. I cannot share that, other than to say that it was eye-opening.

Attend a Ramadan feast. Talk to people. Ask them about Jihad. Ask them about oppression of women. Ask them about what is the meaning of human decency and who deserves it. I feel confident that you will find very few murderous or rapey answers.

You're assuming all sorts of things and not responding to points I made.

[a500lbgorilla]

How many Extremist Islamic Terrorists do you think there are in the world?
A couple-few tens of thousand? Maybe a couple-few hundred thousand?

There are ~1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

I'm fine with hating the terrorists. I'm not fine with dehumanizing almost 1/4 of the people of the world.

It simply doesn't hold up to any reason to imagine that 1/4 of the world are brutal, violent murders and rapists. The number of incidents would be off the charts more common than what we are seeing.

Furthermore... I mean it when I say to spend some time with Muslim people. Talk to them about your worries and concerns. I did. It affected me. I cannot share that, other than to say that it was eye-opening.

Attend a Ramadan feast. Talk to people. Ask them about Jihad. Ask them about oppression of women. Ask them about what is the meaning of human decency and who deserves it. I feel confident that you will find very few murderous or rapey answers.

What happened at the last Ramadan feast you were at?

[rong]

I think he most logical approach to this is to see religion for what it is, brainwashing from a young age. We all start out with an inquisitive mind that wants to understand everything around it and seeks truth. But instead of cultivating that curious truth seeking mind, we brainwash with fear of an imaginary all powerful being that sees all and punishes once it's all over, and we top that up with a bunch of weird rules and procedures and throw in a good measure of guilt for every natural desire we have.

If this was just one person with their own personal belief system amd this systen they had invented was either causing harm to themselves or others, we would send them to a psychologist amd possibly imprison them in some kind of home for the mentally ill.

Just because their particular brand of crazy included the odd feast where they seemed all friendly we wouldn't think it's perfectly fine.

It should be illegal to introduce any children to any be brand of religion imo amd it should be punishable by having said children removed from your care and given cbt or w/e to clear fix them.

Just because the crazy cult got big doesn't mean.we should suddenly respect it.

[wufwugy]

You're assuming all sorts of things and not responding to points I made.

To be more clear, I didn't say the things you think I said. I never dehumanized a 1/4th of the world. I never said they're rapists or whatever.

I have been trying to show how the mainstream of the religion itself gets a pass for being "moderate" while it is actually not. This doesn't mean that the average American Muslim is a rapist. But that has nothing to do with the mainstream teachings of global Islam. It teaches some pretty bigoted stuff. The funny thing is that the West was getting down with this idea (remember when everybody cared about Saudi women getting imprisoned for driving or some bullshit?), but now that's mostly forgotten. I don't know why it's forgotten, but my guess is that it's the baby splashing out with the bathwater when many in the West leap to the defense of "Islam" as a whole when confronted with the reality of Islamic terrorism. Apparently it's so unfathomable that a significant subgroup of Islam is hellbent on destruction of infidels that it must be true that the rest of the Islamic groups are a-okay about everything.

Mainstream Islam doesn't teach terrorism, but it does teach stuff way out of line of Western secular values. Indeed some of the mainstream Islamic teachings are remarkably similar to the teaching for terrorism (just not as explicitly so). Why are we not allowed to make this point anymore?

[wufwugy]

It should be illegal to introduce any children to any be brand of religion imo amd it should be punishable by having said children removed from your care and given cbt or w/e to clear fix them.

I think it's good enough to just hold various beliefs to civil standards. Making thought a crime is bad stuff, by that alone it is important that religion remain a right, but this doesn't mean that behaviors that don't adhere to civil standards based on religious beliefs should be accepted.

If you want to believe in an all powerful being or savior, that should be totally fine. But if you want to believe that this belief allows you to treat people unfairly, that should not be fine.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think he most logical approach to this is to see religion for what it is, brainwashing from a young age. We all start out with an inquisitive mind that wants to understand everything around it and seeks truth. But instead of cultivating that curious truth seeking mind, we brainwash with fear of an imaginary all powerful being that sees all and punishes once it's all over, and we top that up with a bunch of weird rules and procedures and throw in a good measure of guilt for every natural desire we have.

If this was just one person with their own personal belief system amd this systen they had invented was either causing harm to themselves or others, we would send them to a psychologist amd possibly imprison them in some kind of home for the mentally ill.

Just because their particular brand of crazy included the odd feast where they seemed all friendly we wouldn't think it's perfectly fine.

It should be illegal to introduce any children to any be brand of religion imo amd it should be punishable by having said children removed from your care and given cbt or w/e to clear fix them.

Just because the crazy cult got big doesn't mean.we should suddenly respect it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Illegal by whose authority?

[a500lbgorilla]

What happened at the last Ramadan feast you were at?

One of those new management guys that was pushing me to submit faulty work, his name is Ibrahim (called Abe because it's easier for Americans). I got to razz him when I found out the official name of the ISIS Caliph took is Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri. I said I had only heard of two Ibrahims in my life and half of them were ISIS, so I didn't like his odds.

[Renton]

It should be illegal to introduce any children to any be brand of religion imo amd it should be punishable by having said children removed from your care and given cbt or w/e to clear fix them.

I hate religion as much as anyone here, but this is ridiculous. Not every social ill needs laws punishing it. In fact, the vast minority of them do, and its a huge problem with the modern world as we know it that legislatures are so frivolous with legislation.

[rong]

I think it's good enough to just hold various beliefs to civil standards. Making thought a crime is bad stuff, by that alone it is important that religion remain a right, but this doesn't mean that behaviors that don't adhere to civil standards based on religious beliefs should be accepted.

If you want to believe in an all powerful being or savior, that should be totally fine. But if you want to believe that this belief allows you to treat people unfairly, that should not be fine.

Thought crime? Not what I said. Illegal to expose kids to which would stop it taking such a deep rooted hold (take you wuf with your thoughts turning to God on those sleepless nights) and only becoming a problem on adults when it starts effecting your day to day life. So effectively treating it like a thought disorder, like old or psychosis.

[wufwugy]

Thought crime? Not what I said. Illegal to expose kids to which would stop it taking such a deep rooted hold (take you wuf with your thoughts turning to God on those sleepless nights) and only becoming a problem on adults when it starts effecting your day to day life. So effectively treating it like a thought disorder, like old or psychosis.

You said it should be wrong to introduce a child to a particular idea. That's making thought a crime. Unless I missed something...

[a500lbgorilla]

I hate religion as much as anyone here, but this is ridiculous. Not every social ill needs laws punishing it. In fact, the vast minority of them do, and its a huge problem with the modern world as we know it that legislatures are so frivolous with legislation.

So did I get that Bill O quizzer right?

[wufwugy]

The idea that Bill O has culpability emerges from the view that people only do bad things when triggered. It's not ironic that the view is also held by those with the view that feeling offended by something is justification to trigger their own lashing out. That isn't to say I'm conflating the responses.

[a500lbgorilla]

The idea that Bill O has culpability emerges from the view that people only do bad things when triggered. It's not ironic that the view is also held by those with the view that feeling offended by something is justification to trigger their own lashing out.

Buh?

Bill O has culpability because he did the things he did. He may not have had the foresight of the ages to see all the consequences, but he still acted on his own behalf.

[Renton]

So did I get that Bill O quizzer right?

I don't know what the right answer is. I think it's tough. I think Bill contributed significantly to the chance that Tiller would be killed, that much is obvious. But of course, the culpability completely lies with the murderer.

[wufwugy]

Buh?

Bill O has culpability because he did the things he did. He may not have had the foresight of the ages to see all the consequences, but he still acted on his own behalf.

Well, but what he did doesn't make him culpable for murder. While causally it can be said that he plays a part, the line has to be drawn somewhere (because everything plays a part causally). The idea that people are responsible for their actions regardless of the general speech of another is important.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know what the right answer is. I think it's tough. I think Bill contributed significantly to the chance that Tiller would be killed, that much is obvious. But of course, the culpability completely lies with the murderer.

So the murders deserve the most blame because they fired the bullet. Bill O deserves less because he spoke the words to inspire them. Shadowy CEO deserves none because he had no part in any of the dirty details?

You and I have completely flipped views on the situation.

What about the Volkswagen emissions scandal recently? Who is to blame there? The engineers who built the cheats, their managers who forced and approved them, their CEOs who were trying to out-compete?

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, but what he did doesn't make him culpable for murder. While causally it can be said that he plays a part, the line has to be drawn somewhere (because everything plays a part causally). The idea that people are responsible for their actions regardless of the general speech of another is important.

I don't care about something as rock solid as the culpability of murder, that's for lawyers to make a show of. I'm in the shades of gray territory. And shades of blame fall on Bill O, darker ones on his approvers, and lighter ones on those that followed his apparent desires.

[wufwugy]

I don't care about something as rock solid as the culpability of murder, that's for lawyers to make a show of. I'm in the shades of gray territory. And shades of blame fall on Bill O, darker ones on his approvers, and lighter ones on those that followed his apparent desires.

I understand that. It's important that Bill and the people around him feel the same way too.

[rong]

You said it should be wrong to introduce a child to a particular idea. That's making thought a crime. Unless I missed something...

The crime is exposing the child to he idea. Not havong the idea. There's a difference.

[boost]

1.4 billion.

It's a big number.

If we had 1.4 billion terrorist, the war on terrorism would be over and it would have been decisively lost by us.

A similar argument could be made regarding right wing militias from the 80's and 90's in the United States. A very very small percentage of them were Timothy McVeigh (what a cool fucking surname.. shame he ruined it for the McVeigh clan..), yet any objective onlooker would say that right wing militias were something to worry about.

[Luco]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

The crime is exposing the child to he idea. Not havong the idea. There's a difference.

So then it's speech-of-thought crime.

I dunno, you redcoats never did get onto this whole free speech thing. It's good stuff. I suggest appropriation.

But really, if exposure of "bad" ideas is illegal, we'll find ourselves pretty quickly in the kind of society few of us wanna live in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What happened at the last Ramadan feast you were at?

I felt like a voyeur of sorts. It was def. a weird event to be invited into, but I was. Everyone knew I was a non-Muslim, and everyone was inviting and sociable.

It all started about 45 minutes before sundown. Sundown is when the day's fast is over, and they go by the official time of sunset posted in the newspaper.

First, we took off our shoes and met in the cafeteria. There were women preparing food, but only bottled water was being served. Everyone said their hellos and social stuff, then the men and women split into separate groups. I went with the men, obv.

There was a religious ceremony, complete with the kneeling and bowing and reciting the ... I don't know what it's called... Allahu Ackbar prayer. It's basically the Muslim version of the procession of Faith in a Catholic mass. IDK if other Christians do this. This was in Arabic, but the rest was in English. There was a sermon portion of the ceremony that was FAR more laid back than any Catholic sermon, in which the ... imam?... encouraged everyone to be wholesome people, avoid aggressive thoughts and try to make the best of being a misunderstood minority. It was a small enough event, ~20 people or so, that there was a Q&A with the imam from the ... parishioners?... I don't remember the exact questions, but the theme was about how to explain being a Muslim to non-Muslim people.

I sat quietly and didn't participate at all. I felt like it would have been an interruption, but in retrospect, I doubt it would have.

After the ceremony was over - it took all of about 20 minutes - we went back to the cafeteria. The women arrived shortly after we did and began laying out buffet trays of food. People got their food and went to sit at the tables, but no one ate anything. It was amusing to see that everyone was not-so-casually eyeing the clock in the room. The women came out of the kitchen and got their own food and sat down with everyone else. There was a collective crunch of eating all at the exact moment. It was funny to me.

The food was OK. Vegetarian, and not too spicey. I suppose if I hadn't eaten all day, it would have tasted better.

Afterward everyone hung out for a couple of hours. Spirits were high. People were laughing now and then. The genders weren't separated beyond the work and religious ceremonies. I asked why they didn't share the same ceremonies and they told me that the ceremonies were the same, but the Q&A is standard and men and women face different challenges and don't need to complicate things with sexuality. They said that men and women alike felt more open to talk about their struggles when the groups were divided.

We talked for a while. I was an ersatz spokesman for American ignorance. I don't remember all the finer details of our conversation, but I remember that everything I thought I knew about Muslim culture was wrong. I had failed to ever visualize the daily lives of Muslim families. I failed to see that their culture, whatever the system of societal structure, is dramatically different, but not oppressive to anyone. All of the women emphatically told me that they were not oppressed, but that they felt very free to be women and proud to play the role. They said their religion is rich with symbolism and that is of great comfort to them. They said the greater sense of community was vital to their personal inner strength.

All the same kind of stuff that Christians say about their faith. None of it really makes sense to me, but at the end of the day, it's all honest, fallible people trying to make the world a livable place.

[JKDS]

I've been delaying entering this thread because I'm a minority viewpoint and am on vacation. Saying more than I have is work I don't wanna do atm.

But talking about bill isn't work.

There's actually an interesting subset of law that deals with situations like this. Idk what jurisdiction is involved, so this is general "don't try this at home, not legal advise" type stuff.

But ppl can certainly be punished and culpable for actions they inspire. Example on a small scale: if you tell someone to fight someone else, you just encouraged a crime and can be culpable. Some states call it aiding and abetting, some call it other things. In the worst cases, it's conspiracy to commit assault

For other speech though, like Bills, we got some neat things. It matters whether he told someone to do this, whether bill knew his words would cause this effect. He can't go on and say "x lives at 123 fakestreet, light him up". But the line gets blurry when it's not crystal clear.

One thing that annoyed me is that the video he used to justify the baby killing was unreliable. Who knows what it actually shows, there's no context, a biased presenter, and edits that call the whole thing into question.

I think he should be civily responsible for what he did here...but I don't think it's criminal

[wufwugy]

Inherent to Islam (as well as Judaism, but not so much Protestantism), is a theological racism. We never talk about this and Jews get a super pass on it. They probably get a pass because you kinda have to know orthodox Judaism to know the way in which this racism operates, as well as they don't believe in force or harm upon Gentiles, so there isn't much utility in caring.

A subset of Muslims, mostly ones integrating into modern western cultures, have been adopting the more Judaic view of the theological racism in Islam. It's probably mostly a matter of utility. However, the same theological racism is used in mainstream Islam outside of the western world to justify less savory things that involve force upon non-Muslims as well as force upon less-devout Muslims. At current time, this happens in ways to significant degrees that it does not for other monotheistic religions.

This is part of why there is so much silence among so many mainstream Muslims when violence is a response to things like visual depictions of Mohammad. Inherent to Protestantism is the view of proselytism by choice, so it tends to not end in violence. Inherent to Judaism is the view of no proselytism, so they don't give a shit what Gentiles think. Inherent to Islam is the view of proselytism by force, which is why it tends to be so much more aggressive and mainstream "moderate" Muslims actually hold lots of views that are nowhere near moderate to secular tastes.

If anybody wants to know specifically what I mean by Judaic theological racism, I can explain the way it has been explained by my father's orthodox Rabbis. Of course they don't call it racism, but that's still what it is.

[rong]

So then it's speech-of-thought crime.

I dunno, you redcoats never did get onto this whole free speech thing. It's good stuff. I suggest appropriation.

But really, if exposure of "bad" ideas is illegal, we'll find ourselves pretty quickly in the kind of society few of us wanna live in.

I don't understand what the thought crime is? If you kept deliberately exposing your young children to something you knew was likely to lead to delusions and psychosis you'd probably be dealing with social.services before long.

[wufwugy]

Only because of the demonstrable harm caused by that.

It seems you think that religion itself causes demonstrable harm. I don't think that case can be made adequately enough.

[JKDS]

The big issue is a slippery slope argument. What things are OK to teach your child? The state would have to be involved to ensure you're following guidelines, so how much control over your parenting should the State have? Should we mandate the learning of discipline? Require parents to make their kids study 3 hrs a day? What about punishing parents who encourage cheating, or excessive cheapness?

We gotta protect kids, but I'm uncomfortable interfering inwhat traditions, culture, and religion is allowed to be passed down

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't understand what the thought crime is? If you kept deliberately exposing your young children to something you knew was likely to lead to delusions and psychosis you'd probably be dealing with social.services before long.

Some delusion is valuable. Stark cold rationality is not the best choice for everyone. One of the central features of religion is that it gives people the tools and frame of mind to keep at it. To have faith in a good result without consideration for the position you're in, sometimes that's what's needed.

Why do you think religion pops up so often and has stuck around for so long?

[Renton]

The problem is that to some extent, parents have ownership over their children. To what exact extent this is/should be the case is of particular interest to libertarian circles (i.e. how does the non-aggression principle apply to parent-child interactions?). Obviously it is wrong for a parent to abuse a child, but its hard to draw a line between acts which are abuse by almost anyone's standards (i.e. murder, severe injury, rape) and those which leave room for debate (i.e. indoctrination or other mental abuse). I would tend to be conservative and stick to prosecuting the acts that provably cause irreparable harm to children.

[Warpe]

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

[rong]

OK, I agree, banning teaching religion to kids is not the simple solution I though it might be.

Perhaps a different approach would be including atheism in R.E. assuming it's still being taught these days at all.