UK anti-Muslim hate crime soars, police figures show

[Seth]

You said "if you believe... you are an extremist". Seth said "Extremism is not what you believe or think, it's what you DO"

He's clearly not agreeing with you.

Reparse that, including the leading phrase "In the same way". The result should be an amalgam: "if you believe that the Koran is the word of god, that certainly makes you an extremist. (Mistersmackedoutofhishead) in the same way that if you believe that the Bible is the word of god, that certainly makes you an extremist."

Non sequitur. One can believe anything without it axiomatically leading to extremist behavior. I don't care a fig what someone believes, about God or anything else, I only care what they actually do, and I don't care what their motives or excuses are for misbehavior. If you misbehave it's irrelevant why you misbehaved, you need to be dealt with because you misbehaved and for no other reason. I leave it up to the punishment for the misbehavior to guide the individual along the proper path of acceptable social behavior.

[Seth]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

[Seth]

I do like our society, I am quite happy with much of it, however I do not think a trivial number of people who allow their lives to revolve round one book should be given any special treatment or start making demands, especially when many of their demands are anathema to the society. Makes no difference to me whether they are Muslims or not nor do I think such whining fucks represent Islam in the U.K.

But people have the right to make demands. And go protesting for their demands and petition parliament and the government and so forth. We then have the democratic processes to decide which of these demands will be fulfilled and which won't.

Agreed. However if 30 or 40 people are demanding special treatment on behalf of many many people who actually don't require or wish such I think we should be able to tell them "fuck off with your trivial shit." However if for example 100,000 people start complaining that those 30 or 40 people should be removed from the state (such as goons like the EDF and the BNP do), why should their demands be considered any more repugnant because of their political stance than a clutch of people who's beliefs are totally at odds with the state and why is it, that because such people are Muslim, we should give credence to their trivial bullshit?

Why should you or anyone else give a damn about what someone else believes so long as their actual behavior is socially acceptable and lawful?

[JimC]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

And the US constitutional position on religion was only the latest in a series of moves which tamed the tiger. Britain may seem to have an "established religion", but that is a superficial and traditional gloss. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power in civil affairs...

For one historical reason or another, Islam has not gone through the same process...

[Seth]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

And the US constitutional position on religion was only the latest in a series of moves which tamed the tiger. Britain may seem to have an "established religion", but that is a superficial and traditional gloss. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power in civil affairs...

For one historical reason or another, Islam has not gone through the same process...

Well, this does bring up a rather knotty conundrum for Socialists who believe in majoritarianism. If the majority of the inhabitants happen to hold a single religious belief and wish to constitute their society and laws based on those religious beliefs, who are the minority dissenters to complain about it? That's how "democracy" works after all.

Just another example of the philosophical and practical failings of Marxism. You can't have it both ways. Either you hold to social democrat principles and suck it up and accept the will of the majority or you become a gross hypocrite when it's your ox that happens to get gored.

[Warren Dew]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

I think you are giving the enlightenment too much credit. The fact is, in the earliest years, Christianity spread and became a major religion due to peaceful conversion, while Islam spread due to conquest; Mohammed led nations and armies, while Jesus did not. Christianity always had to coexist with secular law; Islam didn't.

[pErvinalia]

Most muslims do, Seth. The one's who don't, though, are definitely a problem. Seems to me that the UK is heading for more religious problems in this regard in the future. Religion really does poison everything.

Certainly some religious groupthink does. But then again so does some irreligious groupthink.

As I said, it's not about thought or belief, it's about actions. I can't agree, for example, that Buddhism "poisons everything."

True, but Buddhism isnt' really a religion, it's more a (peaceful) philosophy towards life. Although, interestingly, Buddhists in I think Burma(?) have been in the process of slaughtering Muslims for a few months now.

[pErvinalia]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

Yeah, Jim made the good point that the West experienced the enlightenment, whereas the Islamic world didn't. Therefore they don't have the same passion for secularism that we have. Although, there's certainly large secular parts of the Islamic world, eg Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia.

[pErvinalia]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

And the US constitutional position on religion was only the latest in a series of moves which tamed the tiger. Britain may seem to have an "established religion", but that is a superficial and traditional gloss. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no power in civil affairs...

For one historical reason or another, Islam has not gone through the same process...

Well, this does bring up a rather knotty conundrum for Socialists who believe in majoritarianism. If the majority of the inhabitants happen to hold a single religious belief and wish to constitute their society and laws based on those religious beliefs, who are the minority dissenters to complain about it? That's how "democracy" works after all.

Just another example of the philosophical and practical failings of Marxism. You can't have it both ways. Either you hold to social democrat principles and suck it up and accept the will of the majority or you become a gross hypocrite when it's your ox that happens to get gored.

No, it's just another example of you to fail to understand what socialism actually is. There's nothing in socialism that precludes a constitution of rights. I for one support constitutions, and I'm a pseudo socialist.

[pErvinalia]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

I think you are giving the enlightenment too much credit. The fact is, in the earliest years, Christianity spread and became a major religion due to peaceful conversion, while Islam spread due to conquest; Mohammed led nations and armies, while Jesus did not. Christianity always had to coexist with secular law; Islam didn't.

I don't know if that's true. During the dark ages, Islam was the keeper of "science" and philosophical thought, while the Christians were all killing themselves.

[surreptitious57]

One can believe anything without it axiomatically leading to extremist behavior. I do not care a fig what someone believes about God or anything else I only care what they actually do and I do not care what their motives or excuses are for misbehavior. If you misbehave it is irrelevant why you misbehaved you need to be dealt with because you misbehaved and for no other reason. I leave it up to the punishment for the misbehavior to guide the individual along the proper path of acceptable social behavior

There are two major flaws with this line of reasoning. The first is that you do not take into account the motivation for someone committing a crime. You may not think this is important but judges however do. And so do juries though they are not supposed to. And so too do the general public. But all that aside however why someone does something is important. In fact it is arguably more important that the crime itself. The second is that you do not take into account that not all laws are good and
so can justifiably be broken. Also you do not believe in the majority being allowed to dictate to the minority. But laws themselves are passed by majority vote [ other
wise they cannot become law ] So how do you propose that they get passed instead

[JimC]

I had a big argument with people on my facebook wall the other week about Islamic terrorism. I basically said that percentage wise, there are more extremists in Islam than there are in Christianity. I don't actually know if that is correct, but it seems about right. What's the deal. Am I right. Is there something inherently wrong with Islam, or is it a case of the socio-political scene in Islamic countries. I.e. it's a volatile mix between religion and politics?

I don't know if there are more extremists in Islam, but certainly those that exist are far, far more overtly violent and dangerous.

And yes, it's a volatile mix because Islam doesn't purport to be simply a set of religious beliefs and practices as, for example, Christianity does, it purports to be BOTH a set of religious beliefs AND a mandatory model for social governance, which is what makes it particularly dangerous. It's one thing for the Pope to revile homosexual behavior, but its another thing entirely for the government to base its laws and punishments on what the Pope says about something. Modern Christianity has the benefit of being a non-coerced voluntary grouping that (in the US at least) has no legislative or executive powers, whereas modern Islam holds itself out as a government force requiring involuntary obedience to religious beliefs.

I agree, with the rider that the change to the earlier christian tendency to want to rule the secular world as well is due to the dogged efforts of many brave people over the centuries, particularly during the enlightenment. If left to its own devices, a christian hierarchy of one sort or another would still want to rule the roost. They did not pull their own teeth...

I think you are giving the enlightenment too much credit. The fact is, in the earliest years, Christianity spread and became a major religion due to peaceful conversion, while Islam spread due to conquest; Mohammed led nations and armies, while Jesus did not. Christianity always had to coexist with secular law; Islam didn't.

Tell that to the victims of the crusaders, the inquisition, and all the victims of Europe's panoply of wars of religion.

Also, it was ambitious kings and princes who forced christianity to "coexist with secular law"; they didn't fancy taking orders from Rome. In a way, the lack of a muslim equivalent of the pope has meant that every region has its own cabal of secular rulers and imams, working together...

[NineBerry]

The fact is, in the earliest years, Christianity spread and became a major religion due to peaceful conversion, while Islam spread due to conquest; Mohammed led nations and armies, while Jesus did not. Christianity always had to coexist with secular law; Islam didn't.

That is not true. Starting in the 3rd century, Christianity got very much in bed with politics, first in some provinces of the Roman empire, then in Rome itself. Once it was the state religion, opposition within was squashed with the power of the state and further expansion was done by conquest. While Islam started off getting power with conquest on the Arabian peninsula, further expansion in Africa and expansion towards the east was to the bigger extent done by proselytizing, although certainly as soon as there was a muslim majority, other religions would be harshly regulated or completely outlawed.

[NineBerry]

True, but Buddhism isnt' really a religion, it's more a (peaceful) philosophy towards life. Although, interestingly, Buddhists in I think Burma(?) have been in the process of slaughtering Muslims for a few months now.

Buddhism is a fully on religion with all its features except belief in a God. And it isn't that peaceful either. Apart from what's going on in Myanmar (Burma), Buddhism is used to keep the conflict on Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Hindus going. Then there is the history of Japan in the 20th century where Buddhism played a major part in the justification of Japanese war efforts and war crimes. And it is still in Japan the case that conservative politics is (just as in the west or anywhere else) in bed with "the religion of the land". Just look at that news item from a few days ago: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/079d6a3a-6ddc ... abdc0.html

If you go back further in history, there are more instances of Buddhism behaving as any other religion that got a majority of the population and/or the political leaders behind it.

[Svartalf]

Remember that for centuries, the pope was very much a secular king as well as a spiritual authority and that the naming of bishops and the like was a very contentious matter between himm and various kings.

Plus let's remember that much of Germany was made christian at the edge of the sword by none else than Charlemagne.

Mahayana buddhism is fully a religion with all the trappings and pantheon thereof... and its offshoot zen is one of the most fearsome warrior religions ever, teaching to always concentrate on what you're doing (like hacking foes to bits) andnot minding the risk of death.