Hesperado: Which claim? The first one or the second one? I think it would be better, seeing as it was you you ventured that in the Muslim world "religiosity has a much more profound hold on people in a variety of sociocultural and psychological ways" that it really ought to be up to you to support your claim, rather than up to me to produce links to refute it. Of course, if it was just a vague impression you have based on your axiomatic prejudicial belief that it must be the case, then no need to lift your little finger trying to find links. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bear in mind that I specifically mentioned Indonesia, if you plan to go looking. I've read two already. That's probably enough for now. Oh, well that's all right then. I'm not averse to the odd bit of sarcastic mockery myself, now and then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hesperado, you've never heard that there's not a whole lot of flaming fundamentalism in Indonesia? http://www.indonesiatravel.org.uk/culture-religion-of-indonesia.html Eid al Fitr sounds like Christmas... But they also celebrate Christmas. Which seems odd in a Muslim country...probably a leftover from being a Dutch colony. And it's Islam obviously sauced with a lot of Hinduism and Buddhism. Pretty mellow. The Minangkabau are said to be the largest matriarchal culture in the world-according to my cultural anthropology class. I was told there is 1.8 million Minangkabau? And they are Islamic.
Not all indications. 1) His act of mass murder indicates mental derangement. (That does not exclude other motives.) 2) The fact that his act, as I noted on my blog, handed the PC MC establishment with a supremely juicy gift on a silver platter by which they can milk this for years as an excuse to say "See? Muslims aren't the only terrorists we have to worry about!" -- while at the same time he's supposed to be an intelligent person concerned about advancing the anti-Islam cause -- shows he's either a bloody idiot, or that he's deranged. What he did has set the anti-Islam cause seriously backward -- and yet, he's also intelligent. These two data do not compute -- unless one also posits a brain fried by schizophrenia or other mental disease. 3) Or, as I explore on my blog as "Theory #1" -- he's not so much anti-Islam as he is anti-West: perceiving most of his fellow Westerners as Evil Leftist Enemies, and having become profoundly alienated from them, came to a psychopathic place where killing them made sense as some kind of pre-emptive act of war against an Enemy perceived to be destroying his civilization. Any way you shake that, it comes out stark raving insane. P.S.: I don't rule out insanity to explain most (if not all) jihadists: I don't see that as relevant (as some kind of attenuating factor) to their deadliness and sociological & ideological nourishment from Islamic tradition, culture and texts. Indeed, from the Hadiths, Mohammed comes across as having a wide range of serious and curious mental problems.
For what it's worth, I don't like Islam, or Christianity: to me they appear to be different branches of worship of the same nasty little pencilheaded deity. But I will treat the practitioners of said religions with compassion. M'kay?
Oh yes, I hear that and read that all the time -- every time some Muslims commit an atrocity or behave in outrageously anti-liberal ways there, every newspaper or TV news story always anxiously adds "but most Indonesians practice a tolerant form of Islam" (without ever, of course, providing proof for this claim). Here's an interesting story, from the BBC in 2010. It seems there is a major province in Indonesia called Aceh. According to that BBC report: "Aceh's unique autonomy status within Indonesia allows it to implement Sharia as a formal legal system." And guess what, this has resulted in human rights abuses. I.e., the more Islamic a community, the more human rights abuses seem to occur. The more tolerant areas of Indonesia are that way by virtue of a) the iron fists of dictators like Sukarno and Suharto after the Dutch left b) the legacy of Dutch colonialism. The human rights abuses reported in that BBC story included: "In one incident, an unmarried couple were dragged into the streets by a crowd and assaulted." And why? Because of Sharia law being allowed to be applied in that region more. Quote: The report by New York-based HRW, Policing Morality: Abuses in the Application of Sharia in Aceh, Indonesia, focuses on two of the five Islamic laws applied in Aceh. The first imposes strict Islamic dress codes. The second prohibits men and women, who are not blood relatives or married to one another, from being together in an isolated place. ... The Islamic law also encourages members of the community to enforce the rules. I.e., crowds of Muslims dragging a man and a woman into the street to be assaulted, for the "crime" of wanting to be free to be together alone. I.e., Islamic law is outrageously puritanical. And too many Muslims around the world believe that's good, not bad. And you PC MC idiots don't give a shit.
You are still supporting and fighting for the ideology of the terrorist who did this? One from your side, who supports the very ideology you espouse on your blog and other sites you frequent, hunted down and killed nearly 100 children and teenagers on a small island and you are still coming out with the 'evils of Muslims'? I am going to give you some advice. Go away.
Are you so sure we are not? Read the papers, Bells. Read them with soft eyes. Read what is not said as much as what is, note which words are used in which situations. The nature of humanity is that it takes far longer to dislodge an idea than to place one in there to begin with. Children are paper for scribbling on, teenagers an easel, adults stone. You've read recently, I presume, the recent discussions on whether or not Sharia law has application in Australia. The subdued arrogance with which some admit it has been here, quietly practised among immigrant communities, for as long as they've been here - and this despite knowing the wider community and the law do not find it acceptable. The discussion will arise again, in a few years. And again, a few after that. This little opening skirmish has been a child dipping its toe in the water. You like to present yourself as one who cares, Bells. Perhaps you take a certain pride in seeing yourself as caring more than most, yes? You're not alone in this. I wonder if you care enough to discard your own ideals, should it ever come to the world you leave for your children, or theirs. How often have you read of something which made you angry... at least for the few minutes you took to read it before going to work and forgetting. A few months down the track, you will be able to say the name Carnita Mathews and few will know who you refer to. All the talk, and the talk, and the talk... and then nothing. Forgotten. Governments, including ours, work on the same principles. Daylight savings? Rejected, several times. Rejected and rejected, and yet the debate was always reintroduced. Finally, they resorted to imposing a "trial" upon us. Now its a part of our lives. The Western Australian Government, some years ago, introduced a "temporary" increase on vehicle licences, supposedly to be rescinded after one year, to pay for... I've forgotten. What I remember, though, is being one of only a very few who noted that they did not rescind it. That arrogance, Bells, is there because they know you - in the same way a child knows a weak parent. Apathy has always been there. Now, there is a new thing... tolerance. There is no longer a reliance upon apathy being a natural thing. It has been given a new guise. I wonder how much you really care. About your children, or theirs, or the ones after them. It must be such an anathaema to even entertain the notion that there are some who care more deeply about their beliefs than you do... and are prepared to put aside "humanity" for a moment in order to achieve their purpose. I can admit it freely, Bells. I do understand Anders Breivik. I understand the Muslim terrorists as well. It is quite possible to acknowledge their courage even while you abhor their beliefs. You can't deny its existence simply because you don't want to acknowledge it. And what does that tell you? You'll find any reason to do so, because you do not agree with what he has done. Yet you feel no compunction in assigning the word "brave" to someone who is forced to deal with cancer by neccessity. Why? You either deal with it, or you die. Bravery is an act of choice leading one to discard their own life or comfort zone, in spite of consequence. Do you honestly believe this man acted out of a belief he would have a better life than if he did not? You people are all making the same mistake. You can't see the forest for the trees. I said nothing about the killing of unarmed teenagers being a brave act in and of itself. Bells, it really doesn't matter to them what you believe. The eyes of the world are on him, and on Norway. Grab a man by his throat, shove him up against a wall, spit in his face, and I guarantee you he will see nothing but your face for seconds distorted into hours. He has succeeded, has he not? Do you really think blowing up a military establishment would have engendered anywhere near the same reaction and comment?
I already have clarifed it. Twice, now. What a wishy-washy definition. Defining bravery as displaying courage, or not being timid. Marvellous. Let me guess. This is a game, right? I have to follow clue after clue until I win a prize by finally being able to pin down a definition? Clutching that dictionary to your chest, are you? Heh. I'm reminded of an epsiode of "Blackadder", in which Baldrick and the Prince are attempting to help Blackadder re-write the dictionary. Baldrick, upon being asked for his definition of a cat: "Cat... not a dog". I don't care enough about your type to suggest a similar course of action for yourself. Heh. Wonderful. Shut up. You're an idiot.
You can call anyone who does terrible things against others "insane" but that is at best a slang expression. From his careful and detailed planning spread over weeks and written in a long manifesto, it seems much more likely that clinically he was very sane just as Hitler was sane. Do you have any reason to state he was "insane" ? He probably planned not to be caught, but the killing took longer than he had planed. He was, it appears, a very rational extremist.
Probably because it doesn't really exist. We all require justification. The primary motivation, though, is simply desire. All this talk about the "value of human life", and yet I've never received a convincing explanation of exactly what that is supposed to be. 6.5 billion people in the world, growing every day to the detriment of everything else, and we still prattle on about this. If we had a few billion less bloody people in the world we wouldn't have all that many Anders Breiviks or Muhammad whatisfaces to begin with, would we? One's basic humanity. What is that, exactly? Moral absolutism?
To the sentences that I have bolded in blue, I would suggest that the "value of human life" shall have clear opportunity to define itself as we move into a future of increasing challenges, dwindling resources, disparate distribution and conflicting ideologies. While these actions of Anders Breiviks are an unacceptable course of action to my own ideology, I am not entirely shocked by this event, and it is my concern that ongoing challenges may only encourage more such conduct. The attention that this event will generate increases my concerns that other individuals who are disenfranchised with life may elect to follow a course of destructive action, with their goal to perhaps do little more than 'go viral' on the social media, go out with a bang so to speak. Logic may not be the best platform to endeavor to analyze the actions of this individual from, and this type of action may be most difficult to attempt to identify and prevent in future. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But we do not treat the other more softly. Nor are we conditioned to view Islamic extremism with softer eyes. Look at the way the Government has implemented its immigration policies and how it deals with boat people as a prime example. Or the children overboard.. We are primed to view them with fear.. Good grief man! And the Sharia Law stories? The fear it generates? This forum is a prime example. Had he been Muslim, this post would have been on page 50 and the usual suspects would have been crawling all over it like a dog scratching its buttrash. Look at how we are treating this act? The media is torn between calling him a terrorist and calling him a mass murderer or killer. The guy blew up a bomb outside the offices of the Prime Minister and then drove to an island and tried to kill all the youth camping on that island. Had he been Muslim, there would be no hand wringing about whether he is a terrorist or not. Well yes. Which begs the question, why target the children and teenagers? Their peers won't be pliable to that cause. Quite the contrary. I think it is stupid that people are shocked. Of course they have been resorting to it for private disputes. Just as Jews also refer to their Rabbis for the Rabbinical Courts to deal with their private disputes. People are carrying on like they are about to start flogging women for wearing jeans in centre square or hanging homosexuals.. No. .... Would depend on the ideal. Then again, if it is an ideal, then obviously it won't bother me as much as it does others. But you also forget, I am a migrant to this country, a non-white Atheist migrant who married a half Dutch/ half Englishman born in Hong Kong.. My ideal is for diversity and for growth. Not for insulating and refusing entry based solely on religion or skin colour. Would I be willing to discard that ideal for my children? I would give my life for my children, in an instant, without thought or regret. But I would not give up my identity, or a portion of my identity that they carry.. Daily.. I have a long memory and I stew for a long time. Ask my husband. And she was charged and sentenced for making a false report. But who is at fault for that? Who willingly forgets? You have left your precious NT and moved to the land of Bligh? AHAHAHAAHAAA! I am debating leaving the land of Bligh.. We are still protesting that trial you know.. Because we shut up about it.. What has he achieved? What positive thing has Breivik achieved? What has he done that was so necessary? He has done nothing worthwhile. Nothing necessary as he seems to believe it is. His egotistical manifesto and his actions, coupled with his desires for his court appearance, which he has been denied.. Breivik does not care about my children or their beliefs, just as he did not care about the children he slaughtered or their beliefs. What he did was selfish and reeks of someone with a huge ego. Someone up himself. His mission, his self proclaimed necessary mission was to support his beliefs. His purpose was selfish and the means he used to make that purpose public was selfish. If he had wanted to set aside his humanity and show his true purpose, he'd have doused himself with petrol and set himself alight. Not distract police with a carbomb so he could have a couple of hours hunting unarmed and defenseless children and teenagers on a small island. He didn't set aside his humanity. Read his manifesto and you'd realise he had none to begin with. He is all ego. The spoilt child who throws a tantrum when he does not get what he wants. And he is pissed off and whiny that his Government didn't give him what he wanted: The gunman had said his operation was not aimed at killing as many people as possible but that he wanted to create the greatest loss possible to Norway's governing Labour Party, which he accused of failing the country on immigration. The bomb in Oslo targeted buildings connected to the Labour Party government, and the youth camp on Utoeya island was also run by the party. [Source] That is the reality of what he did. He's a whiny little prick who is too far up himself to see the sunshine. Oh, I acknowledge it. I just do not think it is courageous. What he did was selfish, egotistical and self serving. That is not courageous. That they're screwed. That they are as egotistical as he is and that they are sheep. You know, they think they are set apart, the outsiders. But they are mere hero worshipping sheep. Having been there for over the last year, there is no bravery involved. You just do it so that your children will have a chance at having a mother for as long as possible. There is no bravery in it. The man is up himself, Marquis! His 'I will disclose my reason in open court'.. His whole manifesto which is like a diary addressed to his brothers and sisters who he thinks will follow him into the fight.. he sees himself as having paved the way for them to now take up the battle with instructions on which bombs to use and how to build and disguise them. The rest that he wrote himself involves whining.. A lot of whining. And his twitter quote.. He is the visionary he went out and did it while others merely talk or dream about it. And yet I am supposed to believe them or understand them? I'd rather he see blood after his gonads are sliced off slowly. The eyes of the world were to be on him as he requested an open hearing so he could voice his reasons and self justification and to make sure we all knew and recognised him, he wanted to wear a uniform.. he has been denied that world wide audience. Now he is nothing but the monster who did what he did. He has failed. His manifesto is being torn to shreds and he has been denied his chance to make a bigger public spectacle of himself in court.
. I wonder what will happen in here if we just try to add the word "islamic" between Oslo and bombing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, it will go to that way sooner or later Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Many insane people are meticulously obsessive-compulsive. Being detailed in one's planning hardly excludes insanity. I already presented a rudimentary, but sufficient argument answering your question above (in a response to someone else). I would distinguish between rationality and logic. Rationality (based upon Reason) would of necessity entail sanity; logic not necessarily. People suffering from severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, for example, are usually able to logically explain why they do the things they do -- and they often need logic to perform their meticulous obsessions -- but they are being irrational nevertheless.
On Sharia Law On Sharia Law I would only point out that, as an American, I am privileged to have faith in the First Amendent. Despite what idiots like Herman Cain would suggest, the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects us as much from the Sharia demons as from the Christian demons. Meanwhile, since some religious Americans are always trying to push Christianity on us in the form of law—prayer in schools; books in libraries; music, movie, and television censorship; homophobia; women's health; &c.—I think it's quite easy to see that the Sharia demons the paranoid are trying to raise in this country are really just an argument about religious supremacism. Bigots are as bigots will, regardless of color or creed or nation. Meanwhile, religious freedom—our First Amendment—means Sharia will never take hold in our land. I recommend that other countries figure out the point of what might well be our greatest contribution to civil society. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. —Amendment I
Well said. This brutal misguided fool has destroyed the life of hundreds of innocents. He had plenty bloodless options to further his ideology, he chose the path of violence against "others." Like countless individuals and governments before and current. Barbarism is alive and well in 2011. :m:
Well said H. "We must tolerate everyone, no matter how intolerant they are". I'm a leftist, but on this subject, the left is profoundly misguided.
What if a religion came along (with a major branch in the U.S.) that had as one of its foundational tenets: "Kill all black people"; and what if innumerable practitioners of that religion began a) publicizing and preaching that tenet; b) planning to put that tenet into practice; c) actually trying to, and sometimes succeeding in, killing black people in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the world)? Would the U.S. government be powerless to prohibit that particular religion's free exercise?
Your rights are protected as long as they don't trample on someone else's rights. That's why hate speech is tricky, because you have to show some type of intended harm from that speech. Your example would obviously be past that line, although phrased a bit more subtly the first part would, and does pass. But others can use their speech to oppose it.
