h a l f b a k e r yFunny peculiar.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Mosques have something in common with bouncy castles:
you have to remove your shoes before entering. Why not
take advantage of this almost certainly divinely authorised
coincidence and combine the two?
It would surely improve the image of Islam as a joyless,
repressive throwback to a more
violent age if you could
check your shoes in at the door and praise Allah by way of
having a good bounce in an inflatable musalla, complete
with bobbing minarets, while reciting passages from the
Quran. An enormous bouncy temple in Mecca would make
undertaking your mandatory pilgrimage considerably more
enjoyable as you bounce with millions of your brethren,
while the Dome of the Rock could simply be deflated along
with other inflatable places of worship during times of
religious strife and re-inflated once the danger has passed.
Terrorism in Great Britain: the statistics - 7 June 2018
https://researchbri...P-7613/CBP-7613.pdf
//If you can point me to another religion that has produced so many violent fundamentalists in the last 40 years, I will stand corrected.// [zen_tom, Aug 15 2019]
BBC News: Stanwell Tesco stabbing: 'Far-right' knifeman admits attack
https://www.bbc.co....and-surrey-49369683
"I am English, no matter what the government say kill all the non English and get them all out of our of England," "A judge will decide whether his actions amounted to terrorism." [zen_tom, Aug 16 2019]
[link]
|
| |
Prejudiced, insensitive, offensive, blasphemous. |
|
| |
Brilliant. You could do a little yogic flying while you were
there too. Or is that the other lot? |
|
| |
The 8th wonder of the world. |
|
| |
//the image of Islam as a joyless, repressive throwback to a more violent
age// ... alternately, try spending time with actual Muslims instead of
receiving your joyless, repressive opinions from lobby-funded corporate
media. |
|
| |
My neighbors have a huge trampoline in their back garden, which they use
regularly. In addition, at religious festivals, family weddings and other
events, they're quite prone to hiring out a bouncy castle for additional
fun. |
|
| |
//the image of Islam as a joyless, repressive throwback to a
more violent age// Well, there's no doubt that that's the
image it projects. I have very good muslim friends
(particularly in Malaysia, one of my favourite countries; but
also here in the UK), but there is no doubt that Islam in
practice has some issues. |
|
| |
Christianity seems to have done a little better in updating
to the modern world, and maybe it's because christians
brought out a revised edition of the bible. Old-testament
christianity is pretty primitive, but with v2.0 available
there's little excuse to follow the v1.0 instructions. Maybe
it's time for someone to write the New Koran, and probably
the New Talmud while they're at it. It would also be an
opportunity to update the menus a little, now that pork is
generally safe to eat. |
|
| |
There's plenty of modern, normal, non-stereotypical
Islam about - indeed, from where I'm sitting, normal,
non-medieval stuff seems to be the
overwhelming norm - at least my opinion formed by
work colleges, neighbors, people on the bus, that
kind of thing - that doesn't make very good telly
though. |
|
| |
Yes, that's true of course. But my point was that islam has
a much more active, violent and vocal fundamentalist
segment than other religions at the moment. There are
fundamentalist christians, but they seem mostly to just rant
and vote. There are fundamentalist jews, but they seem
content with strange hairstyles and wearing prayer-boxes on
their foreheads. I'm sure there are fundamentalist hindus,
shintoists and pastafarians too. But islam has produced
fundamentalists who are more worrying altogether. |
|
| |
If you can point me to another religion that has produced so
many violent fundamentalists in the last 40 years, I will
stand corrected. |
|
| |
//another religion that has produced so many
violent fundamentalists in the last 40 year// |
|
| |
Check out page 5 of the attached UK Government
report - the numbers speak for themselves. I know
"Irish"
isn't a religion, and maybe they were just much
more effective (there are 4.5 million Irish, and
1.8 billion Muslims (2 million in the UK)-
the population-to-death ratio remains easily with
the Irish) - but we don't see the same blanket
stereotyping of Irish folks as being medieval,
joyless, repressive or violent (the figures don't
break down
how many of those deaths were due to Protestant vs
Catholic killings - so I'm refraining to make that
leap) -
Or maybe we used to, but it's just calmed down a
lot. |
|
| |
There's certainly a lot of war going on right now -
much of it located in areas that are predominately
Muslim - but I don't think that's necessarily
rooted in religion, rather than more traditional
economic/political reasons
for warfare. |
|
| |
But perceptions - as you rightly point out, don't
reflect any of that - Bin Ladin's trick was to pull
off something truly apocalyptic - something that
would create a narrative -
and in terms those goals, it worked wonders - just
look at this conversation - one isolated
event managed to change the face of the world and
achieved
exactly what the planners intended - to sew the
seeds of division. I think in addition to Al
Quaida, it's
fair to say it's been in lots of people's interests
to talk-up the threat, in order to sell us more
politicians, police, army, guns, newspapers and so
on. So we (or at least sub-divisions within "our"
population) have kind of been complicit
in that. |
|
| |
More recently, The White Nationalists (again, not a
religion per-se) are certainly catching up -
between Brevein, that
one in Christchurch, and now daily/weekly goings on
in the US - things are looking increasingly skewed
in
terms of perpetuating the "radical and violent
Islam" narrative. |
|
| |
Yes, but when people have made their minds (if any) up, it's wrong to confuse them with actual facts. |
|
| |
// the population-to-death ratio remains easily with the
Irish// Hmm. Well, to some extent I do indeed stand
corrected. Although I'd point out that a lot of those statistics
go back to the 1970s - outside my 40 year window. It's also
worth mentioning that those figures are for the UK, and
particularly for Ireland/Nornarn. Taken over the whole world,
I don't think they'd show the same trend. |
|
| |
But you're right about things like mass shootings, especially in
the US. I hadn't thought of them as terrorism, but of course
they are - fair point. On the other hand, they're not often
done in the name of any religion. |
|
| |
But then we come to the "lots of wars in muslim countries". I
don't think you can claim that they're not related to islam, if
you also want to consider Irish terrorism. In both cases,
religion may be only an excuse or be one aspect of a more
general division, but it's a factor. |
|
| |
So, on balance I still say that more modern terrorism is
associated with islam than with any other religion. |
|
| |
I would guess that the DWP are the foremost
terrorist organisation in the UK. Recent news
article showed DWP giving the CAB and
another organization 51 million quid, with the
rider they would never criticise the DWP... |
|
| |
I would guess that the DWP are the foremost
terrorist organisation in the UK. Recent news
article showed DWP giving the CAB and
another organization 51 million quid, with the
rider they would never criticise the DWP... |
|
| |
Islam is a social/political force just like
Capitalism/Communism, one of the world's most powerful
global movements, has no special right to be respected
and can be fairly judged by its own mandatory Quranic
teachings and rules without having to go into terrorism,
which was not mentioned, or Muslims as people, few of
whom chose to be Muslim, who were not mentioned. |
|
| |
Islam dictates a long list of 'haram' activities, including
diet and dress code, and in some interpretations
forbidding the playing of musical instruments or depicting
living things (Joyless). |
|
| |
Islam places men in charge women and strictly forbids
Muslims from changing their religious beliefs or being
homosexual, punishing accordingly (Repressive). |
|
| |
Muhammad was a warlord who bought and sold slaves,
kept
women as booty, assassinated and tortured critics, stole
property and waged offensive battles. In Islam,
Muhammad is the “ideal human being” who Muslims must
strive to emulate. That he was just one of many of his
time is useful to know when trying to square his lifestyle
with modern values. |
|
| |
I have non-believing Muslims in my own family since Islam
rules that a non-
Muslim (man) cannot marry a Muslim (woman) and has to
convert; Islam dictates who you are and are not allowed to
fall in love with (see Repressive). |
|
| |
//Muhammad was a warlord who bought and sold slaves, kept
women as booty, assassinated and tortured critics, stole
property and waged offensive battles.// Yes, but he had his
bad side too. |
|
| |
I don't think it's important who did what over 800 years ago - I
really don't. And of course we should be free to speak our minds
and express our opinions as we see fit. |
|
| |
But it's getting to the point where a specific set of viewpoints is
being used to radicalise the population - perhaps not with the
intention to deliberately go out and cause harm - but certainly
without any consideration as to any harm that might be caused. |
|
| |
If we agree that it's not right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre
-
how should we attune ourselves in response to the knowledge
that
members of the audience are twitchy to the point of panic?
Whispering "fire" can cause the exact same effect if we're not
careful - and if current events are anything to go by, there are a
lot of twitchy people out there willing to interpret what many
would innocently consider philosophical musings into a death-
wish. |
|
| |
I'm not saying we shouldn't comment on the temperature in here,
but if we feel it's important enough to mention, we ought to do so
carefully and with enough responsibility to help try and settle the
general mood. |
|
| |
175 people were killed in 16+ high-profile White Nationalist
incidents in the last eight years - there have been many more
less-
lethal attacks linked to the same, often anti-Muslim rhetoric. |
|
| |
Who and how are these people being radicalised? And if, not long
ago, we were ready to suggest that Muslims deal with the
radicalisation problem apparently fermenting in their own
communities, should we not take some steps to try and be a little
more responsible in examining our own beliefs, if only to question
from where they've come? |
|
| |
We can pontificate about how bad all the religions are in the
world, how they're rooted in x, y or z. But what can we actually
do with that information, other than use it to ferment prejudice? |
|
| |
What actual good does it do to reel out the usual heard-it-all-
before stories, other than to perhaps, temporarily, make us feel a
little better amongst our in-group - even if it limits and sets
boundaries on what our in-group might look like? |
|
| |
Sure, speak freely, nobody is stopping you, but in the interest of
simple kindness, we might try and be a little introspective once in
a while. It's a pain in the ass, I know - but so is getting knifed
through the window of a parked car in a Surrey Tescos for not
being English enough (see link). |
|
| |
I always had doubts about Tesco. |
|
| |
You clearly put a lot of care into writing the above and I
commend you for it. |
|
| |
The judgement call is exactly how able you feel people are
to recognise nuance (such as the difference between
philosophical musings and hatred, institutions and people),
and how you balance positive effects (which are
impossible to measure) with the risk of misinterpretation.
Timing and context are everything. Once, Christians
protested Jesus Christ Superstar and Life of Brian, now, all
of us, Christians included, are richer for them (unless you
really hate musicals). Humour and silliness is always the
best tactic for change. I choose my words carefully. |
|
| |
//You clearly put a lot of care into writing the above and I
commend you for it. // I did, thanks. |
|
| |
So, you're saying the solution may come in the form of Halal
Dolly? Maybe Allah Mia? Well, I can vote for that. |
|
| |
Which reminds me. If memory serves me right, John Cleese
was attacked by Malcolm Muggeridge for Life of Brian.
Salman Rushdie had a fatwa set by Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini. Only one of those warranted police protection. |
|
| |
Inexplicably, Andrew Lloyd Webber does not appear to have
been threatened by anyone. |
|
| |
As John Cleese said: "four hundred years ago, we would have
been burnt for this film. Now, I'm suggesting that we've made
an advance." |
|
| |
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. I'd suggest that
a lot more recently they would have needed
police protection. Progress occurred thanks to people
gradually speaking up and daring to risk causing offence. |
|
| |
I don’t think it’s about offence. Be as offensive as
you want. The world is and should remain
offensive and tough and rough and tumble. Nobody
should be protected from being offended. But at
the same time we shouldn’t normalise a narrative
that increasingly makes people feel justified in
harming others because they’re not white
enough.Whether they’re Mexicans, Muslims or
European migrants, the terrorist attacks on them
by radicalised white snowflakes who have taken
offence at something they heard that they didn’t
like. |
|
| |
Damn. I hate it when someone posts a considered and rational argument. |
|
| |
There's no doubt that hostility against minorities is more prominent now
than for some time,
and that is of course to be abhorred. However, there is also some truth in
saying that islam is
more problematic than any other religion. As far as I can tell, there is no
specifically jewish,
christian or hindu movement which is as aggressive as the radical side of
islam, on a global
scale. It's not at all one sided, but islam seems to lead the field. |
|
| |
There's also the fact that, whilst the vast majority of muslims are
peaceable and reasonable
and easy-going, the strict interpretation of islam has some inherent issues
that are
incompatible with the broader understanding of human rights. One of
those issues is that it's
a non-voluntary religion: you're born muslim and, at least in theory and
often in practice, you
can't leave. Another issue is that predominantly muslim countries tend
not to be secular, and
the punishments/restrictions imposed by islam often have the force of
law. I was shocked to
find that, even in Malaysia (which I consider to be fairly developed and
had expected to be
secular), sharia law applies to muslims. This sort of thing is simply
incompatible with the 21st
century notions of equality, personal freedom and personal choice. More
broadly (and without a huge depth of knowledge to back me up), it seems
to me that islam today is largely where christianity (and maybe judaism -
I don't know) were a few hundred years ago. |
|
| |
^ Tells me, I just imagined a bouncy praise Allah wave of Muslim sujud rippling around the mosque like some wave table experiment. Everyone with youthful joy on their faces. |
|
| |
Religion was a there to help societies out when the heart was a bit stronger than the mind. We're still getting there, some hearts are stronger than others. |
|
| |
Hey, if we can have a helter-skelter in Norwich cathedral, who's to say
we shouldn't have a bouncy castle in a mosque? |
|
| |
I'm just pointing out the problem with indulging in unhelpful
stereotyping like the "joyless, repressive throwback.." line. |
|
| |
In case anyone else is enjoying my upbeat brand of light and breezy
banter, I'm here all week and can be booked for weddings, bar
mitzvahs and corporate events. |
|
| |
There is a problem with stereotyping. However, there is also
a conflict coming sooner or later. Fundamentally, islam is set
against the values that are on the rise globally - viz an
increased demand for religious freedom, human rights and
secularism. Either islam has to adapt, or the world has to,
and I know where my money is. |
|
| |
... but you can't tell us, because the tax authorities might read
this. |
|
| |
I see no difference between the ethos of Islam and that of Catholicism. Both are equally idiotic, oppressive, divisive, dangerous and the source of violence and misery. |
|
| |
That's not completely unfair. On the other hand, my
understanding is that you can decide to quit catholicism if you
choose. |
|
| |
Maybe of Catholicism of a hundred or so years ago. |
|
| |
Oddly enough, of the three religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam, only one has a directive "be nice to the other religions". Which is it? |
|
| |
Not to mention Buddhism, which somewhere in sutras is a "whoever denigrates the Buddha spirit will have the head broken into seven pieces"...can't help thinking an even number of fractures is probably easier? |
|
| |
The idea that there is a single, official "anything" is about as out of date now as it gets. Today
there are nearly as many individual or group Christianities as there are "some kind of spiritual
energy" new-age people. Yes, there's a Pope or two, and plenty of Archbishops, a plethora of
Pastors, all of whom, if you got them into a room and asked them to Sinod the fuck out of what's
what - would generate a gamut-load of sanctioned opinion. |
|
| |
Doubly so for Muslims, who, despite various localised Caliphs, Grand Imams, Muftis and Ayatollah's, who
might well argue otherwise - Islam's
central organisational tenets are widely to reject any imposition of any central worldly authority. So any Muslim
is just as free as
some of the more creatively fervent Baptists out in the States, to declare almost anything divine,
and decry any other thing to hell and back. |
|
| |
Equally, those of a religious bent; Muslim, Christian, Jew or Zoroastrian, who find themselves
ensconced in sensible, liberal and generously-minded, largely tolerant societies will undoubtedly see
the divinity and godly wisdom in a more modern, live-and-let-live - dare-we-say it - civilised -
type of attitude as has been, and continues to be proven to be, in the Darwinian soup of ideas,
supreme over the last 200+ years. |
|
| |
Western Civilisation (despite its many flaws) is at its most powerful a force when it gets to flex
its liberal values by demonstrating how existence can be quite lovely if we socialise ideals of
tolerance, forbearance, fair play and kindness, and promote the goal of optimising the amount
of freedom available to all. |
|
| |
Where this falls down is under constant lobbying pressure of more mean-minded, nationalistic
world views where the accident of ones birth is promoted as being the primary source of worth
in an individual. We largely put paid to this nonsense back in the 1940's but there's money in
promoting it again, and it's up to all of us now to stand up for the right thing. Even if it means
occasionally being annoying on a forum normally reserved for more grammar-focused pedantry. |
|
| |
i) there is no single monolithic "Islam" for us to call judgement upon
ii) if there was, and even if there wasn't, regardless, the best thing we could do to bring it up to
date, would be to liberal the fuck out of it, just like we successfully did with 2000 years of all
kinds of Christianity and everything else (except pockets of the US, who might take a bit longer
to catch up)
iii) we can't achieve ii) so easily if we throw out the hard-won liberal values we all rely upon in
our society and that make it so very delightful, despite the best efforts of others who are
encouraging us to do so.
iv) so why not be generous and kind to those of alternate faiths, safe in the knowledge that in
doing so, we are cementing the civilised values of our shared Liberal Western Democracy in
even the nastiest, furthest-flung corners of the globe - reducing the grip of cultists - of whatever
stripe - over their captive flocks. It might take another 50 years, but we've been doing so well, it
would be a shame to undo all the progress achieved so far.
|
|
| |
//would be to liberal the fuck out of it// and how do we do
that? Spreading Western ideas doesn't seem to be the whole
answer - people are happy to adopt mobile phones and fast
food yet still profess to despise the decadent, godless West. |
|
| |
I suspect your general philosophy is right, but it's not clear
how you implement it. |
|
| |
We implement it by being good, decent people - who care about upholding a set
of values we can all get around and agree on. And we should keep at it. It's a
long-term strategy. For a while, with peak multi-nationalism, and a near-global
acceptance of the rule of international law, we were almost getting there - not
just culturally, but also in a tangible, organisational sense. The Financial Crisis
was a massive setback to that, and now, there is somewhat of a retreat to a kind
of isolationism that will undoubtedly see growth in the more opaque and
unwelcome corners of the globe. The places where the most extreme and
wicked incarnations of anti-human ideology keep their roots. |
|
| |
Collectively, we're the counter to those shadowy, isolate corners - we have the
light, we just have to keep it shining. |
|
| |
It's about demonstrating a balanced, sustainable, healthy freedom - one in which everyone can feel
confident and brave enough to place their faith in without being rejected. If a believer is welcomed
and over
time feels the genuine rush of freedom they never could have gotten at home - that's a powerful
thing. |
|
| |
But it's not ever going to happen over night, and there's going to be horrible, terrible setbacks along
the way. |
|
| |
// Collectively, we're the counter to those shadowy, isolate
corners - we have the light, we just have to keep it shining. // |
|
| |
Mmmmmno. I don't think we are. |
|
| |
I refer you to a very important passage in H G Wells' "Open
Conspiracy", from the beginning of the thirteenth chapter. I
would draw your attention in particular to the last sentence. It's
very important advice. |
|
| |
'WE have dealt in the preceding two chapters with great classes
and assemblages of human beings as, in the mass, likely to be
more or less antagonistic to the Open Conspiracy, and it has
been difficult in those chapters to avoid the implication that "we,"
some sort of circle round the writer, were aloof from these
obstructive and hostile multitudes, and ourselves entirely
identified with the Open Conspiracy. But neither are these
multitudes so definitely against, nor those who are with us so
entirely for, the Open Conspiracy to establish a world community
as the writer, in his desire for clearness and contrast and with an
all too human disposition perhaps towards plain ego-centred
combative issues, has been led to represent. There is no "we,"
and there can be no "we," in possession of the Open Conspiracy.' |
|
| |
//of the three religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam,
only one has a directive "be nice to the other religions".
Which is it?// |
|
| |
I'm not sure which one you're thinking of but all three
supply such a gesture, though they are vague, very hard to
find
and obviously all contradict themselves elsewhere
multiple
times: |
|
| |
Christianity: The parable of the good Samaritan - Luke
10:30–37 |
|
| |
Islam: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. -
109:6 |
|
| |
Judaism: For all people will walk every one in the name of
his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
- Micah 4:3-5 |
|
| |
//This is why the Islamic faith is unreformable// You just never know what music the kids will get a hold of. |
|
| |