Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[LutonSpurs]

interestingly I think (and maybe @LutonSpurs can correct me if I’m wrong) the ‘objection’ to the visual depiction of Mohammed in Islam is the fact that the worship of idols is banned. So Mohammed is not to be idolised, which I’m not sure many Muslims actually understand… so again maybe the answer is more eduction on the the religion rather than less?

So depictions are not allowed for the above reasons in orthodox Sunni circles at least. Insulting depictions are tolerated less so but the original issue is the depiction

 

[DTA]

For animals that are societal yes there is an advantage. You are able to create societies that benefit one another. Pack animals benefit from being a part of a pack. Better protection. Predicting anothers actions based on your own experience. Mitigating dangerous behaviour of others.
We even see different species working to benefit each other. That doesn't work if only one side benefits. Do you think dogs don't have love for their human friends when they try to protect them? Even to the point of giving their life? Did they get that from religion?

The most selfless creatures are the hives. Ants, bees etc... it's all about the colony, not the self. People might not call it empathy but it's definitely selflessness.

A parents love for their children and need to protect them, is very similar amoung mammals. Although kangaroos are tossers and will throw a joey out of their pouch in order to get more speed.

dogs and empathy is a good call. I actually know a reasonable amount about Canine behaviour, let me think on this for a while so I can give you worthy answer.

 

[DTA]

So depictions are now allowed for the above reasons in orthodox Sunni circles at least. Insulting depictions are tolerated less so but the original issue is the depiction

Not* right?

so the actual issue is the depiction rather than the depiction being insulting? No idolisation rather than your are insulting what I find holy.

and does the non tolerance (less) of the insulting imagery, come from the religion itself or is that something that has grown separately to what it says in Islam?

the reason I’m delving in to this point is because it’s a good Segway into enlightening others about actual Islam rather than the warped interpretations that they assume actually stem from the book.

because most people would actually find the logic in non idolisation rather then ‘need to protect a deity “. Although Mohammed is not a deity either.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Not* right?

so the actual issue is the depiction rather than the depiction being insulting? No idolisation rather than your are insulting what I find holy.

and does the non tolerance (less) of the insulting imagery, come from the religion itself or is that something that has grown separately to what it says in Islam?

the reason I’m delving in to this point is because it’s a good Segway into enlightening others about actual Islam rather than the warped interpretations that they assume actually stem from the book.

because most people would actually find the logic in non idolisation rather then ‘need to protect a deity “. Although Mohammed is not a deity either.

In reality there is a bit of both in classic jurisprudence and hate mongering in modern conservative movements. But there is a very noisy movement whereas many of us realise that it's fine to be offended but by screaming about it you only make it more popular, see Rushdie.

 

[DTA]

In reality there is a bit of both in classic jurisprudence and hate mongering in modern conservative movements. But there is a very noisy movement whereas many of us realise that it's fine to be offended but by screaming about it you only make it more popular, see Rushdie.

interesting. Under blasphemy I assume?

 

[LutonSpurs]

interesting. Under blasphemy I assume?

Yeah. Blasphemy laws are not something I support of course. But the rulings exist and vary. Primarily they exist within the state if it exists and should never be applied extra judicially. So it applies to citizens. Again these aren't necessarily the only views in classic discourse, many legal jurists have a meh approach to it.

 

[braineclipse]

In reality there is a bit of both in classic jurisprudence and hate mongering in modern conservative movements. But there is a very noisy movement whereas many of us realise that it's fine to be offended but by screaming about it you only make it more popular, see Rushdie.

It's fine to be offended, I would usually appreciate if someone told me that they got offended by something I said or did. If I didn't know it gives me the opportunity to change my ways to be less offensive in the future.

To me the next step is important. Should there be an expectation that people will change their behaviour because others got offended? To me the rather clear answer is that it depends.

Screaming out may be the wrong strategic choice, but I also think screaming out should be discouraged for other reasons. You need more reasons than being offended for there to be a reason to think that others should change their behaviour.

 

[scaramanga]

interestingly I think (and maybe @LutonSpurs can correct me if I’m wrong) the ‘objection’ to the visual depiction of Mohammed in Islam is the fact that the worship of idols is banned. So Mohammed is not to be idolised, which I’m not sure many Muslims actually understand… so again maybe the answer is more eduction on the the religion rather than less?

Still doesn't make any sense

 

[braineclipse]

No one has the answers mate. We cannot completely rid the world of feelings of anger, isolation and unhappiness. It’s interesting that people blame religion for all ills, which I think is more to do with fact that they don’t see value in religion. On the other hand, my faith gives me strength and comforts me during difficult times, combating the very feelings that might make a person vulnerable to radicalisation. I am sure it’s the same for adherents from all religions. If religions didn’t exist you would lose the good parts and still have divisiveness and radicalisation through other means, ethnic nationalism, incel etc.

Definitely unfair to blame religion for all ills.

Not doubting that there is value to religion for many people. What you point out as means of divisiveness and radicalisation I agree with too.

At the same time I also don't doubt that many people also find value in ethnic nationalism, incel communities etc.

We as human beings are very capable of finding strength, comfort, community, togetherness, belonging etc in a whole host of different beliefs and communities. Those beliefs and communities can at the same time have positives and negatives in various ways.

Personally I find it difficult to believe that religion is a particularly good protection against radicalisation, if one at all. Togetherness, belonging, to beliefs and communities with more positives and fewer negatives might be though. Some religious communities are that I think, others rather clearly not.

I think what is good and valuable in religion can be found elsewhere. If religion went away, but nothing replaces what is good about religion we could be worse off. Humans have a drive for those good things though, that's not going away. What is being offered to fulfil those drives can change.

 

[braineclipse]

If we look at the make up of the majority of these actors they aren't influenced by the mainstream. These young men often lack a father figure. They are rebelling and going against the grain. They are angry and they are looking for like minded angry people and to belong to something. Mainstream voices really don't land. That is my anecdotal experience with how the minds of these kids work. And one thing I'm convinced of is that the radicalisation occurs online. Islamic, far right, incel etc... There are massive parallels in the characters of the men who get caught up in these movements. And then there are the tiny percentage who are driven to violence by it.

My question is where do we stop these people. At what point do they go from having hatred to committing violent crimes. I do not know the answer but I don't think prevent works. Spotting the signs of these things early is so hard.

We should have this discussion. I'd love to hear people's views on how we as a society can work to ensure it stops. I don't have the answers.

No real answers here. And answering based on my interpretation of the word "hate", which I think is as qualitatively different to anger and as something that comes instead of other feelings and experiences.

If you have a lot of people with a lot of hate towards others some will turn violent. Identifying and stopping all those that do is impossible I think.

Given that and as said hate causes a lot of harm even without people turning to extreme violence the answer for me would have to also be geared towards stopping the hate, not just the extremist violence.

So, what causes hate? How do we strengthen those things that is replaced by hate?

 

[LutonSpurs]

It's fine to be offended, I would usually appreciate if someone told me that they got offended by something I said or did. If I didn't know it gives me the opportunity to change my ways to be less offensive in the future.

To me the next step is important. Should there be an expectation that people will change their behaviour because others got offended? To me the rather clear answer is that it depends.

Screaming out may be the wrong strategic choice, but I also think screaming out should be discouraged for other reasons. You need more reasons than being offended for there to be a reason to think that others should change their behaviour.

I think it is if the offense is rational (in this case it is driven by belief in GHod so it is not) then it can lead to change but there cannot be an expectation.

Still doesn't make any sense

I would suggest it is not rational for it to make sense, it is driven by faith in an unseen so what you say makes sense.

No real answers here. And answering based on my interpretation of the word "hate", which I think is as qualitatively different to anger and as something that comes instead of other feelings and experiences.

If you have a lot of people with a lot of hate towards others some will turn violent. Identifying and stopping all those that do is impossible I think.

Given that and as said hate causes a lot of harm even without people turning to extreme violence the answer for me would have to also be geared towards stopping the hate, not just the extremist violence.

So, what causes hate? How do we strengthen those things that is replaced by hate?

These are the actual questions, but sadly even if you and I agree, it only works if there is a uniform response which given the freedoms we value cannot exist.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

And how do you come to that conclusion? Where is that empathy originated from? Is it inherent? Does it exist in the natural/animal world? I’m not saying it does or doesn’t?

@scaramanga is your man for this question

 

[Jurgen the German]

Offence is so subjective. As Ricky Gervais says, just because you are offended doesn’t mean you are right. Some people are offended by gay marriage or racial equality. Some people on Twitter are offended by literally everything. Demi Lovato said she finds the term “alien” offensive to extra terrestrials. Neil DeGrasse Tyson wittily retorted saying they don’t speak English and they don’t have feelings. That doesn’t give people free reign to upset people of course but I think we have to be careful about fear of treading on eggshells or upsetting people when sometimes, difficult discussions need to be had.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Still doesn't make any sense

Even staunch atheists can have 'irrational' views around images and representation. Would you be able to stab a knife into a photograph of your child's face, knowing full well that logically it could cause them no harm?

 

[JerusalemMan]

Any volcano trouble? We're supposed to be heading down there in the new year.

None whatsoever. Just a temperature and degree of sunshine that is most unlike my normal October experience in Yorkshire.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Sorry to push you on this, but I’m actually interested to hear your views as I quite like you as a poster.

Specifically on the point about how removing religion and capitalism would be a boon to humanity (I paraphrase)
A number of the countries that have attempted anything like this merely in the last hundred years have contributed millions of murders to the global roll call of death. My personal knowledge of the Cambodian situation is one of those examples. China and Russia yield other better-known ones.

I'm diffident on the capitalism point as I'm not wedded to it as the sole good option.
Religion/faith though...my entire life has been built upon it and I seen and participated in so much good as a direct result. Which is very much not the view of many posts here. But then, I am instructed by my own faith that those who don't share it will think me stupid or deluded so it's hardly any shock now to read the volumes of casual abuse towards faith/religion though it caused me pain in my younger days.

 

[Lilbaz]

Specifically on the point about how removing religion and capitalism would be a boon to humanity (I paraphrase)
A number of the countries that have attempted anything like this merely in the last hundred years have contributed millions of murders to the global roll call of death. My personal knowledge of the Cambodian situation is one of those examples. China and Russia yield other better-known ones.

I'm diffident on the capitalism point as I'm not wedded to it as the sole good option.
Religion/faith though...my entire life has been built upon it and I seen and participated in so much good as a direct result. Which is very much not the view of many posts here. But then, I am instructed by my own faith that those who don't share it will think me stupid or deluded so it's hardly any shock now to read the volumes of casual abuse towards faith/religion though it caused me pain in my younger days.

I'm just as critical of some ideologies as i am of religion. Especially if it has devout believers that have lost sense of reason.

Remember some of us were brought up religious. And where you see casual abuse i see justified criticism.

You also realise the vast majority of religious oppression and attrocities were caused by other religions? Why because for the people at the top it's about power. They want it and will destroy other threats to get it and keep it.

Saying that. What you believe is your choice. If you find comfort from it good for you.

 

[scaramanga]

Even staunch atheists can have 'irrational' views around images and representation. Would you be able to stab a knife into a photograph of your child's face, knowing full well that logically it could cause them no harm?

Absolutely, it's just a piece of paper.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Even staunch atheists can have 'irrational' views around images and representation. Would you be able to stab a knife into a photograph of your child's face, knowing full well that logically it could cause them no harm?

This is a weird analogy tbf

 

[DTA]

Specifically on the point about how removing religion and capitalism would be a boon to humanity (I paraphrase)
A number of the countries that have attempted anything like this merely in the last hundred years have contributed millions of murders to the global roll call of death. My personal knowledge of the Cambodian situation is one of those examples. China and Russia yield other better-known ones.

I'm diffident on the capitalism point as I'm not wedded to it as the sole good option.
Religion/faith though...my entire life has been built upon it and I seen and participated in so much good as a direct result. Which is very much not the view of many posts here. But then, I am instructed by my own faith that those who don't share it will think me stupid or deluded so it's hardly any shock now to read the volumes of casual abuse towards faith/religion though it caused me pain in my younger days.

100% agree with you on the first part, actually both parts, although I never grew up religious my family were more close to the Sufi or Alevi humanist (ish) Islam mixed with some Kemalism but apart from one of my grandmothers not really practicing much at all and even that grandmother (who I adored) mixed that in with traditional Turkic mysticism/shamanism which is actually quite common and still interest me.

a lot of people talk about religion or faith being bad, and less faith being a positive thing, but if I’m being honest, more faith would actually be better for me… if I truely 100% believed that I will get to see those that I love and lost, it would give me great solace and almost certainly make me less self destructive. I guess I have a little faith mixed in with a lot of hope.

anyways I almost certainly have shared too much.

thank you for taking the time to reply.