Pat Condell: "The crisis of secularism"

Post Reply New Topic

Fair enough. It also seems that I may of mixed you up with Mike_Garrick, who I replied to initially, when I asked for a quote.



Those people would likely still be opposed to gay rights, feminism etc. Though you wouldn't of been derided by me since I was making the same criticisms even before 9/11 as I am now.



"Arab" has been racialised in some cases, I've seen it. Otherwise, why do arabs get stopped and searched routinely at airports while white folk (and most other ethnic groups really) don't raise the same suspicion?



If Christianity was really opposed to slavery, then it seems kind of strange that it was in existence for, say, 1600 years, give or take, before christians suddenly realized that their faith told them to ban it, don't you think? To be fair, the relationship between Christianity and slavery is slightly more complex but what it still boils down to is that not even the Catholic Church outright banned it until the abolitionist movement in the modern period. Sure, there were some christians who supported abolitionism and used sometimes used the bible to back up their position but ultimately it was actually secular ethics that initially brought up the issue. So no, it can still be criticized over the slavery issue, especially since slave at the time also even used the bible to justify slavery.



I have little knowledge of that, so I can't really comment on it. However, note that Locke also said that his theory on the relationship between labor and property only applies to property that was unowned before any of the labor took place. Also note that philosophers criticize each other and therefore errors they make can be corrected by others, unlike holy books which are supposed to be considered inherent by their staunchest believers.

It wouldn't just be Arabs that are being stopped - I would guess that Muslims from Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and other parts of Africa, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and so on would be under similar suspicion.

First of all, religion itself can't enforce laws. Religion however, can become a problem when it get's to control politics. As far as confusing those two things goes, actually you lose that distinction when your religious beliefs and you political ideology is one and the same thing. The "political goals" of Wahhabism and Salafism is to restore the "Islamic Caliphate" back to the way it was in the 7th century under the rule of the prophet Mohammed with it's respective 7th century laws. That is pretty much a religious goal, not just a political one, especially since they are actual religious sects as well, and I therefore am well within my rights to criticize the religious beliefs of those two sects as the basis for their ideology as well as the basis for the ugly human rights abuses committed by these sects as well. Furthermore, since Sharia law is supposed to be traditional Islamic law as given in the Koran, I'm therefore also well within my rights to criticize the religion as the basis for Sharia law. The Sharia law as given in the Koran is not open to interpretation, it is pretty unambiguous with clear punishments given for specific crimes.



Actually, the west has continuously become more secular since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th century. So, it's not really true that it only goes back a couple of generation. Also, one culture cannot be "ahead" of another culture, you seem to be working under the fallacy that human cultures evolve from barbarity to enlightened, which is not actually the case. However, let's go through your points one by one, just for clarity sake.



First of all, let me point out that voting is not a basic human right. What it is, is a privilege granted by a democratic state to allow it's people to choose their own government. For example, even today, many democratic countries do not allow convicted criminals to vote, foreigners usually can't vote and persons under the age of majority (usually 18 years) can't vote. In the time you are talking about, initially most men couldn't vote either and voting was restricted to land owners. Now don't get me wrong, I fully agree that the fact that not all citizens were allowed vote spoke to the inequality of people in society and the fact that women weren't allowed at all spoke to the inequality between genders. For that reason, yes, women should be allowed to vote. However, not being allowed to vote really pales in comparison to being liable to stoning to death after being raped, don't you agree?



I've criticized slavery as well, but as I said before, it was secular ethics that ultimately set the ball rolling for the abolitionist movement.



Actually, no. What did happen was that Europeans brought with them diseases that the native people of the America's were not immune to, such as small pox, and those diseases unfortunately wiped out the native population.



The witch burning thing actually speaks to reasons why religion and superstition should not be involved in legislation.



Perhaps because the Taliban was not considered a threat prior to 9/11. However, given the fact the Taliban were harboring Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queada who were responsible for 9/11 and who, by the way, threatened even more attacks on US soil, I would call that a threat and I would also call that war, a war of self-defense.

Last edited by Jono on 07 Sep 2012, 6:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

I guess.

Yes the religion and political law of the region has become rather intertwined, however just because one follows a religion does not mean they agree let alone support what the group of people during 9/11 did nor what its government does.
Simply put most don't even know there is another way to live and the first glimpses they are getting of that is now.
Unfortunately it is also of that other way of life's soldiers forcing their way into the homes of their neighbors and dragging them away to be tortured.
You can not blame people who see this for fighting back against us, they are scared and for good reason.
But everyone simply lumps them together with the radicals that orchestrated 9/11.
I do also understand that it is nearly impossible to actually differentiate between the acts of a terrorist and a desperate man who simply wants his son back but most people don't even want to admit that there is a difference.

However even with this holding true a large percentage of the citizens are welcoming the change proving that given the choice many would live differently then they are.
But the change will be slow, it will be painful and bloody, and no one is happy with that.
They want it now, they want thousands of years of tradition and ideology of hatreds and prejudices to change with the snap of a finger.
That is unfortunately not how it works, it took hundreds of years for America to get where it is and we still have a long ways to go.

My point was that women's rights as of 100 years ago was to cook men's food, take care of men's houses and men's children.
They were expected to dress properly, act properly and improve their men's appearance.
So how can we after only so recently diverting from that criticize and condemn another culture which does the same.


That does not change the fact that 2 generations and arguably only 1 generation prior to my birth any man with black skin was considered a yard tool in this country.
Simply because we do not agree with it now, does not erase that it happened.


Actually, yes.
When we got here Native Americans showed us how to live here, how to survive, they showed us how to travel safely and unlocked the path through what otherwise would have been impassible obstacles.
We returned their kindness by claiming land and killing any Native American who could not grasp that concept.
Over hunting the animals they depended upon for food, shelter and clothing.
Forcing them into encampments, "for their own good".
Forcing them to convert to Christianity and sometimes killing them if they refused.

Settlers went on a bloody campaign to make this land theirs, and they killed anyone in their way.
As much as modern americans would like to forget it, we nearly wiped out the native americans, simply because they were there.


And yet it does not change the fact that 3 or 4 generations ago we were doing things just as bad as what we are now condemning another group of people for.
Without giving them the same opportunities for self redemption that we received.


Then you go to war with the Taliban and Al-Queada. Not ever Muslim on the planet.
Then you have a real reason, a reason that you don't need to sensationalize as the "War On terror" to keep your population from demanding you stop.
You don't make up stories of nukes, you don't imprison every person you think may even have a brother in Al-Queada.
You don't pass laws that allow you to imprison, without trial any american citizen who you think may have spoken to a "terrorist" in passing.

In the name of safety we have lost what we think we are protecting.
You can go to jail for tweeting, or protesting. You can be put on a terrorist watch list for supporting a politician or having a Muslim friend.
Its madness.

The "war on terror" makes as much sense as the war on frontal assault or the war on ambush.


It is a euphemism. It really means a war on Islam or a war on Muslims. This has been done before. It was called the Crusades in those days.

ruveyn

I know, it never really seemed sensible to me.
But its extremely effective on the general masses.
Much easier to sell the idea of attacking or defending an idea then people.
When people start seeing the enemy as actual people, wars lose support.
Also easily defended. "Terror attacked your freedom, if you don't support this war you don't support freedom!"
Gets everyone riled up, mob mentality and all.

Or that's my best guess at it anyway.

I don't like him, because I think he's very prejudicial and abrasive. i think he needs to chill the f**k out honestly.

You don't live in Britain where the Muslim population is not well integrated into the society. Also Muslims are a problem in Denmark (where there rioted when cartoons of the Prophet were published and in the Netherlands where a movie producers was murdered in broad daylight by a Muslim fanatic.

ruveyn

Islamic extremists, including the likes of bin Laden and other Wahabis refer the the Umma or Islamic People or Nation. It is a collective description of the Islamic population of the world.

ruveyn

I disagree with Pat Condell and EDL types, because they cause unnecessary division. They should focus less on Islam and more on oppression in general. Rather than alienate all Muslims, they should just be calling out against abuses in general, while gaining alliance with moderate Muslims. I know he says that there is no such thing as moderate Muslims, but there most certainly are, I know personally.

Wahhabism is a fairly recent political development. Its only been around less than 300 years, which in the full context of Islam's 1500 year history isn't that long. For someone like Bin Laden to claim authority for all Muslims, is no different than David Duke claiming an authority for all white people. They're rather marginal figures, at least in the lives of most Muslims and white folks. The thing you have to remember is that to an extremist, they exclude a lot of Muslims from their definition of Islam. Since Wahhabism is Sunni, that already rules out all the Shiites, Sufis Dervishes, and Alevis, as well as other Sunnis that don't fit into their rigid definition of Islam. They exclude whole traditions that are much older than Wahhabism itself. So when Bin Laden says he speaks for all Muslims, he actually means all "real Muslims".

Bin Ladens real Muslims excludes most south-east Asian Muslims who although they are "Sunni" are not particularly orthodox or observant. This excludes 62% of Muslims in one fell swoop.

Yes, your absolutely right.
Unstable people who aren't Muslim have never murdered a man in broad daylight for no sane reason.

As for the riots,
Perhaps if Muslims hadn't become the new Nazi's of TV, if half the country weren't harassing them and egging them on they wouldn't feel the need to riot.
The people of our countries have as much fault in events like that as they do.
Our people push them so far that they feel their only recourse to be heard is violence.
Frankly they're kind of right, no one even hears about peaceful protests most of the time, especially when its not a popular cause and Muslim rights isn't a popular item.

Round up the usual excuses.

Please note that when Jews were mistreated as they often were, they did not riot or resort to suicide bombings. When was the last time a bunch of Orthodox Jews hijacked a commercial flight and crashed the plane into a building filled with innocent folks.

ruveyn

That really is the difference. You never hear a peep from Jews in this country, yet all the time we hear about Muslims. Isn't it odd?