21 Egyptian Christians Beheaded in Libya

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I made what is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is of course absurd to define Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is equally absurd to define Islam by ISIS. If you disagree with either of those statements, please explain why you disagree.

The Westboro church consists of 50 people in one town in Kansas. ISIS has at least 1 million followers spread over many countries with numerous scholars justifying its beliefs in the Koran. So I'd say that ISIS is a significant current in contemporary Islamic thought, whereas the Westboro church is an extreme fringe.

Nobody is "defining" Islam by ISIS. In terms of its size and influence ISIS within Islam is more comparable to say the Seventh day Adventists within Christianity. In terms of its justification of violence, ISIS has no comparison in contemporary Christianity.

Regardless of the numbers (which I think you are greatly exaggerating), the principle is the same. As you agree, IS does not represent Islam. My position has been that because IS does not represent Islam, it is unfair to criticize the entire religion based on its actions. There is another poster here who believes that IS can justify its behavior based on Islamic writings and therefore, such criticism is justified. Similarly, Westboro Baptist Church finds justification for its actions in Christian scriptures. I think that you would agree that, as a result, all of Christianity does not deserve criticism as a result of Westboro's actions? Or, to use your analogy, should all Christianity be judged by the actions of Seventh Day Adventists (a group about which I know nothing)?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I made what is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is of course absurd to define Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is equally absurd to define Islam by ISIS. If you disagree with either of those statements, please explain why you disagree.

The Westboro church consists of 50 people in one town in Kansas. ISIS has at least 1 million followers spread over many countries with numerous scholars justifying its beliefs in the Koran. So I'd say that ISIS is a significant current in contemporary Islamic thought, whereas the Westboro church is an extreme fringe.

Nobody is "defining" Islam by ISIS. In terms of its size and influence ISIS within Islam is more comparable to say the Seventh day Adventists within Christianity. In terms of its justification of violence, ISIS has no comparison in contemporary Christianity.

Regardless of the numbers (which I think you are greatly exaggerating), the principle is the same. As you agree, IS does not represent Islam. My position has been that because IS does not represent Islam, it is unfair to criticize the entire religion based on its actions. There is another poster here who believes that IS can justify its behavior based on Islamic writings and therefore, such criticism is justified. Similarly, Westboro Baptist Church finds justification for its actions in Christian scriptures. I think that you would agree that, as a result, all of Christianity does not deserve criticism as a result of Westboro's actions? Or, to use your analogy, should all Christianity be judged by the actions of Seventh Day Adventists (a group about which I know nothing)?

You're being too academic. The point is that comparing ISIS to Westboro given the difference the difference in their violent proclivities is not reductio ad absurdum, it's just absurdum.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I made what is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is of course absurd to define Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is equally absurd to define Islam by ISIS. If you disagree with either of those statements, please explain why you disagree.

The Westboro church consists of 50 people in one town in Kansas. ISIS has at least 1 million followers spread over many countries with numerous scholars justifying its beliefs in the Koran. So I'd say that ISIS is a significant current in contemporary Islamic thought, whereas the Westboro church is an extreme fringe.

Nobody is "defining" Islam by ISIS. In terms of its size and influence ISIS within Islam is more comparable to say the Seventh day Adventists within Christianity. In terms of its justification of violence, ISIS has no comparison in contemporary Christianity.

Regardless of the numbers (which I think you are greatly exaggerating), the principle is the same. As you agree, IS does not represent Islam. My position has been that because IS does not represent Islam, it is unfair to criticize the entire religion based on its actions. There is another poster here who believes that IS can justify its behavior based on Islamic writings and therefore, such criticism is justified. Similarly, Westboro Baptist Church finds justification for its actions in Christian scriptures. I think that you would agree that, as a result, all of Christianity does not deserve criticism as a result of Westboro's actions? Or, to use your analogy, should all Christianity be judged by the actions of Seventh Day Adventists (a group about which I know nothing)?

It's disingenuous to pretend that the numbers don't matter. The number of Westborough Baptist Church people looks more like a handful of freaks. The number of Isis starts to look like a movement. Also of course there's the difference in their violence levels.

By the way, my grandfather was Seventh-day Adventist. They are harmless. A little weird, vegetarian, but harmless.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:too academic. The point is that comparing ISIS to Westboro given the difference the difference in their violent proclivities is not reductio ad absurdum, it's just absurdum.

Question to both of the two previous posters: Do you think the fact that IS claims religious justification for its actions means that the entire religion should be subject to criticism as a result of the group's actions?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:too academic. The point is that comparing ISIS to Westboro given the difference the difference in their violent proclivities is not reductio ad absurdum, it's just absurdum.

Question to both of the two previous posters: Do you think the fact that IS claims religious justification for its actions means that the entire religion should be subject to criticism as a result of the group's actions?

No, I don't. Absolutely not. But to compare Westboro to ISIS is in practical terms, absurd. It's a line of argument that's best avoided, because you're just making it easier for those who do believe that ISIS defines Islam, to gain traction in arguing that you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Parts of the religion are to be sure. Isis is not the only group that seeks justification. A lot of us find sharia law - commonly practiced in many communities - pretty unfair to women/overly harsh to criminals. We find many madrassas to spew poison. No one is criticizing the religion or Muslims as a while, but critique of try e loved practice in many communities can go beyond Isis.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Parts of the religion are to be sure. Isis is not the only group that seeks justification. A lot of us find sharia law - commonly practiced in many communities - pretty unfair to women/overly harsh to criminals. We find many madrassas to spew poison. No one is criticizing the religion or Muslims as a while, but critique of try e loved practice in many communities can go beyond Isis.

The only thing about this post with which I disagree is that nobody is criticizing the religion as a whole. Many people are doing exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I meant to say the lived practice of Islam - yes, open to critique in how its implemented in. Some communities. I also have an issue with fatwas that spring from some Islamic communities and have a chilling effect on free speech. Or the approval of murder for cartoonists in "they shouldn't have provoked us". Overall, there is room for critique beyond Isis - though I agree it should not paint the entire religion but how it I specifically implemented /i teroreted by specific communities/people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parts of the religion are to be sure. Isis is not the only group that seeks justification. A lot of us find sharia law - commonly practiced in many communities - pretty unfair to women/overly harsh to criminals. We find many madrassas to spew poison. No one is criticizing the religion or Muslims as a while, but critique of try e loved practice in many communities can go beyond Isis.

The only thing about this post with which I disagree is that nobody is criticizing the religion as a whole. Many people are doing exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

OK I mean you're probably arguing with one person whose mind won't be changed anyway. In general I think people bend over backwards to carefully construct arguments that don't lead to painting a whole group with one brush.

[Anonymous]

WBC holds up hateful signs, especially in appropriate places. ISIS actually, you know, slaughters people.

But that's none of my business.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:WBC holds up hateful signs, especially in appropriate places. ISIS actually, you know, slaughters people.

But that's none of my business.

Criticize both groups, not the larger religions to which they claim to belong.

[Anonymous]

But back to square one - is there an issue with calling them Christian fanatics ( which qualifies their Christianity) or Muslim fanatics which does the same? I'm starting to be ok with just calling them ass*** murderers, but it just seems disingenuous when they are waving crosses or shouting "allahu akbar tomorrow we march on Rome" in the course of their crimes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WBC holds up hateful signs, especially in appropriate places. ISIS actually, you know, slaughters people.

But that's none of my business.

Criticize both groups, not the larger religions to which they claim to belong.

Does that go for you, too, when you trash the Republican Party as a whole?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I made what is called a reductio ad absurdum. It is of course absurd to define Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is equally absurd to define Islam by ISIS. If you disagree with either of those statements, please explain why you disagree.

The Westboro church consists of 50 people in one town in Kansas. ISIS has at least 1 million followers spread over many countries with numerous scholars justifying its beliefs in the Koran. So I'd say that ISIS is a significant current in contemporary Islamic thought, whereas the Westboro church is an extreme fringe.

Regardless of the numbers (which I think you are greatly exaggerating), the principle is the same.

If you think 1 million followers of ISIS is a exaggeration then you have you head in the sand. The following poll

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis-has-almost-no-popular-support-in-egypt-saudi-arabia-or-lebanon

shows support for ISIS between 2 and 3% in Egypt -- that is over 1 million people right there, and that doesn't include supporters in the 81 other countries who currently have fighters assisting ISIS in Iraq/Syria.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/why-are-so-many-westerners-joining-isis/

Why would you want to play down the actual number of ISIS supporters?

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting question. I do understand Holder and Obama's 'law and order' take on this. Not wanting to call it Islamic extremism, trying Guantanamo people in NY (they gave it a shot) etc. But is there a contradiction in calling it a hate crime when the victims are Muslims as the outcry is to do in Chapel Hill, or being cautioned to not 'get on high horses', but not a Muslim extremist crime when the perps are Muslim? Why is the former viewed threw a religious lense, but not the latter--by the very same people. Thank you for your ideas.