Should I be allowed to burn the flag if I want to?

[unbeliever]

It almost certainly is.

 

If you look at any news story on Facebook, whenever anything happens (the axe attacker the other day for example), the first thing that people do is say "oh I bet it's Muslims". When it transpires it's a white guy, they're a lone-wolf, mentally ill etc.

 

It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You tell someone they're a bomber, they're a terrorist, they're 'bad' often enough, and they will be. It works for most things - tell a child they're bad often enough, and they will be.

 

The quickest way to send people towards extremism is to ostracise and outcast them, pushing them that way.

 

That's an interesting parable. Is there any truth to it though?

 

How is it that when one asks an Islamic fundamentalist why they do what they do they never say any of this. They'll tell you that they do it for Allah and the Prophet Mohammed because they both demands it of them and will richly reward them for it.

Why don't you believe them?

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 12:19 ----------

 

How many times do we see people accused of supporting extremism because they fail to 'speak out against it'. Constantly.

 

Do you have any examples

 

I don't speak out against the IRA, ETA and all the other non-muslim terror groups. I don't particularly distance myself from many criminals, but that doesn't mean I support them.

 

I did list the degrees of "support" in ascending order of significance. There's no enormous criticism for failing to spontaneously jump up and down condemning things without a context.

If you were in a relevant position of leadership you surely would do so.

I see you on here speaking out against what you judge to be the mis-deeds our our government, and so you should.

If somebody asked you whether these non-Muslim terror groups were behaving acceptably, what would you say?

 

And surely we can manage reasoned criticism without jumping to ostracising.

Edited December 1, 2016 by unbeliever

[Andy1976]

It almost certainly is.

 

If you look at any news story on Facebook, whenever anything happens (the axe attacker the other day for example), the first thing that people do is say "oh I bet it's Muslims". When it transpires it's a white guy, they're a lone-wolf, mentally ill etc.

 

It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You tell someone they're a bomber, they're a terrorist, they're 'bad' often enough, and they will be. It works for most things - tell a child they're bad often enough, and they will be.

 

The quickest way to send people towards extremism is to ostracise and outcast them, pushing them that way.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 12:15 ----------

 

 

How many times do we see people accused of supporting extremism because they fail to 'speak out against it'. Constantly.

 

I don't speak out against the IRA, ETA and all the other non-muslim terror groups. I don't particularly distance myself from many criminals, but that doesn't mean I support them.

 

That's an interesting parable. Is there any truth to it though?

 

How is it that when one asks an Islamic fundamentalist why they do what they do they never say any of this. They'll tell you that they do it for Allah and the Prophet Mohammed because they both demands it of them and will richly reward them for it.

Why don't you believe them?

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 12:19 ----------

 

 

Do you have any examples

 

 

 

I did list the degrees of "support" in ascending order of significance. There's no enormous criticism for failing to spontaneously jump up and down condemning things without a context.

If you were in a relevant position of leadership you surely would do so.

I see you on here speaking out against what you judge to be the mis-deeds our our government, and so you should.

If somebody asked you whether these non-Muslim terror groups were behaving acceptably, what would you say?

 

Apologies the quotes are out - I couldn't make it work!!

 

There's certainly truth in the idea that people are persuaded to do things by constantly being told that - I will have a look for the studies though. As for why they then say that it's for the prophet etc, simply because that's what they're brainwashed to believe. It's the brainwashing that happens because they're pushed that way. As I say, you'll have to bear with me on studies.

 

Examples of people being accused of support due to 'not speaking out' is very easy indeed. Just wait for any story about an attack - generally in India or similar, and then click on the facebook Sky or ITN news story. Read the comments. I will put money on it being mentioned within the first 50 comments.

 

As for whether people should speak out - they do. There was a march the other day that 1,000,000 (I believe - forgive me if that's slightly inaccurate) muslims marched on against ISIS. There were even articles on social media about 'why you won't have seen this news'.

[mikem8634]

There is legitimate criticism to be directed at those not directly involved in extremism. From those who fail to speak out against it and those who are apologists for it to those who speak positively of it or even encourage it in others, to those who fund it.

The primary occupation of Islamic extremists is to oppress and persecute other Muslims, and you do them no favours placing the bulk of the blame i the wrong place.

 

Conservative Islam is "extremist" by nature. It's a testament to the fundamental goodness of some people that they manage to reconcile Islam with secular morality and function in a modern peaceful society. I'm surprised that there are so many.

Islam doesn't need any help from outside forces to be extreme.

 

I disagree that I am placing the bulk of the blame in the wrong place. I should have specified unfair targeting in my comment above. It would have made my point a bit clearer. Islam is certainly not immune from criticism.

 

Those who fail to speak out against it - innocent Muslims are disproportionally criticised for this and that is a negative consequence. It is not the job of every Muslim to speak out about Islamic terror in exactly the same way it is not the job of every white person to speak out about white-supremacist terror. Personally, I'd prefer it if everybody spoke out about all terror when ever the opportunity presents itself. However, it is every individual's choice and they certainly do not deserve criticism for not speaking out.

 

Those who are apologists (see below) for it... those who speak positively of it or even encourage it in others... those who fund it. - I consider consciously enabling terrorism to be involving yourself in it. (Although I'd have to consider the degree of the apologetics you are talking about as I do conceded it could be a grey area on that point)

 

Regarding you general points about the fundamental nature of Islam, I completely agree with you. Like all (I think, there may be the odd exception) ancient religions it is indeed, by its nature, extreme. There is, in particular, no difference from Christianity in that regard. You are quite right that the reconciliation of secular morality is what the vast majority of religious people achieve to their credit. If they followed religious doctrine to the letter they would all be extremists.

[unbeliever]

Apologies the quotes are out - I couldn't make it work!!

 

There's certainly truth in the idea that people are persuaded to do things by constantly being told that - I will have a look for the studies though. As for why they then say that it's for the prophet etc, simply because that's what they're brainwashed to believe. It's the brainwashing that happens because they're pushed that way. As I say, you'll have to bear with me on studies.

 

Examples of people being accused of support due to 'not speaking out' is very easy indeed. Just wait for any story about an attack - generally in India or similar, and then click on the facebook Sky or ITN news story. Read the comments. I will put money on it being mentioned within the first 50 comments.

 

As for whether people should speak out - they do. There was a march the other day that 1,000,000 (I believe - forgive me if that's slightly inaccurate) muslims marched on against ISIS. There were even articles on social media about 'why you won't have seen this news'.

 

 

I'm sure it's possible to take children in the first few years of life and, with some degree of success program them to be murderous terrorists. But to be honest by the time people are old enough to understand the suspicions of the wider world being directed against them their core personality is pretty much set.

 

Being the subject of suspicion is not a plausible explanation for the widespread problem of Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism.

 

When captured IRA terrorists were questioned about their motives they gave political reasons. If the Islamic fundamentalists were truly motivated by politics why would they say otherwise.

 

They're telling you, straight to your face, in plain language that they try to kill you because God demands it of them and will reward them for it. Why don't you believe them?

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 12:39 ----------

 

I disagree that I am placing the bulk of the blame in the wrong place. I should have specified unfair targeting in my comment above. It would have made my point a bit clearer. Islam is certainly not immune from criticism.

 

Those who fail to speak out against it - innocent Muslims are disproportionally criticised for this and that is a negative consequence. It is not the job of every Muslim to speak out about Islamic terror in exactly the same way it is not the job of every white person to speak out about white-supremacist terror. Personally, I'd prefer it if everybody spoke out about all terror when ever the opportunity presents itself. However, it is every individual's choice and they certainly do not deserve criticism for not speaking out.

 

Those who are apologists (see below) for it... those who speak positively of it or even encourage it in others... those who fund it. - I consider consciously enabling terrorism to be involving yourself in it. (Although I'd have to consider the degree of the apologetics you are talking about as I do conceded it could be a grey area on that point)

 

Regarding you general points about the fundamental nature of Islam, I completely agree with you. Like all (I think, there may be the odd exception) ancient religions it is indeed, by its nature, extreme. There is, in particular, no difference from Christianity in that regard. You are quite right that the reconciliation of secular morality is what the vast majority of religious people achieve to their credit. If they followed religious doctrine to the letter they would all be extremists.

 

 

It is my view that Muslims have a much harder job reconciling secular society with their faith. A lot of the "permission" taken from the bible for secularism is missing from the Quran. There's no equivalent to "render unto caesar" and the Quran is very clear and prescriptive about how a society and government should operate. You have to set that aside as a Muslim even though you're instructed not to, where as other faiths give you permission.

[mikem8634]

I'm sure it's possible to take children in the first few years of life and, with some degree of success program them to be murderous terrorists. But to be honest by the time people are old enough to understand the suspicions of the wider world being directed against them their core personality is pretty much set.

 

Being the subject of suspicion is not a plausible explanation for the widespread problem of Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism.

 

When captured IRA terrorists were questioned about their motives they gave political reasons. If the Islamic fundamentalists were truly motivated by politics why would they say otherwise.

 

They're telling you, straight to your face, in plain language that they try to kill you because God demands it of them and will reward them for it. Why don't you believe them?

 

I do believe them. I believe that both Andy and I are suggesting is that unfair treatment by western societies can make people more inclined to believe in and act upon what God demands of them.

[Andy1976]

I'm sure it's possible to take children in the first few years of life and, with some degree of success program them to be murderous terrorists. But to be honest by the time people are old enough to understand the suspicions of the wider world being directed against them their core personality is pretty much set.

 

Being the subject of suspicion is not a plausible explanation for the widespread problem of Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism.

 

When captured IRA terrorists were questioned about their motives they gave political reasons. If the Islamic fundamentalists were truly motivated by politics why would they say otherwise.

 

They're telling you, straight to your face, in plain language that they try to kill you because God demands it of them and will reward them for it. Why don't you believe them?

 

I believe that they believe that. I completely do.

 

The question for me is why they believe that? Why have they been indoctrinated to think that? When did that happen?

 

I'm opposed to religion being pressed onto any child, regardless of the religion, but I suspect there's a degree of that. Potentially it's a large degree.

 

Susceptibility is interesting - there will inevitably be a large number of people who are very susceptible, and would be open to being pushed over into extremism. My point is that I think those people would be very easily persuaded if they were being excluded in the way that Donald Trump et al seek.

[unbeliever]

I do believe them. I believe that both Andy and I are suggesting is that unfair treatment by western societies can make people more inclined to believe in and act upon what God demands of them.

 

Surely the bulk of the Islamic fundamentalists don't interact with and are never directly affected by this unfair western treatment.

 

Once again, I suspect that you are acting on an instinct that we can resolve these problems by making ourselves better people even though our enemies are clearly the ones most in need of moral reform. I sympathise but that approach has its limits.

 

When somebody tells you that they will stop at nothing to kill you unless you become like them, a killer of those who won't pray to their god in their way, you cannot defeat them by appeasement.

 

Absolutely we should do better in how we treat Muslims who are adapted to and reconciled with secular society. No question. We should do that for its own sake, because it's the right thing to do. But our failures in this area are not a significant factor in the threat from Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism is part of Islam and it must be confronted rather than appeased.

Moderate muslims are the primary beneficiaries when we confront the fundamentalists and the most threatened when we fail to do so.

[mikem8634]

 

 

It is my view that Muslims have a much harder job reconciling secular society with their faith. A lot of the "permission" taken from the bible for secularism is missing from the Quran. There's no equivalent to "render unto caesar" and the Quran is very clear and prescriptive about how a society and government should operate. You have to set that aside as a Muslim even though you're instructed not to, where as other faiths give you permission.

 

That may well be the case, but the margins are going to be pretty fine regarding how relatively permissive Christianity is, for example.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2016 at 12:51 ----------

 

Surely the bulk of the Islamic fundamentalists don't interact with and are never directly affected by this unfair western treatment.

 

Once again, I suspect that you are acting on an instinct that we can resolve these problems by making ourselves better people even though our enemies are clearly the ones most in need of moral reform. I sympathise but that approach has its limits.

 

When somebody tells you that they will stop at nothing to kill you unless you become like them, a killer of those who won't pray to their god in their way, you cannot defeat them by appeasement.

 

Absolutely we should do better in how we treat Muslims who are adapted to and reconciled with secular society. No question. We should do that for its own sake, because it's the right thing to do. But our failures in this area are not a significant factor in the threat from Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism is part of Islam and it must be confronted rather than appeased.

Moderate muslims are the primary beneficiaries when we confront the fundamentalists and the most threatened when we fail to do so.

 

No, there is a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding between us here. Everything you say about those already radicalised is correct and I agree with it.

 

I am concerned about the effect unfair treatment of innocent Muslims has on those who could become, or are on the way to becoming radicalised. Unfair treatment is recruitment propaganda.

Edited December 1, 2016 by mikem8634

[unbeliever]

 

No, there is a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding between us here. Everything you say about those already radicalised is correct and I agree with it.

 

I am concerned about the effect unfair treatment of innocent Muslims has on those who could become, or are on the way to becoming radicalised. Unfair treatment is recruitment propaganda.

 

Sure. Unfair treatment could be an ingredient in radicalisation in some cases. It's a possibility. Unfair treatment should be addressed urgently as a matter of general principle anyway, so by all means. But addressing that is going to have little or no impact on the threat to the varied decent peoples of the world from Islamic fundamentalists.

[mikem8634]

Sure. Unfair treatment could be an ingredient in radicalisation in some cases. It's a possibility. Unfair treatment should be addressed urgently as a matter of general principle anyway, so by all means. But addressing that is going to have little or no impact on the threat to the varied decent peoples of the world from Islamic fundamentalists.

 

Agreed, but I'd add, as it currently stands, to the last bit in bold, as it could effect the future numbers of fundamentalists.