|
Zonie63 -> RE: Rotherham child abuse and the cover up (8/31/2014 8:05:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Yes, there are too many people and you you've used precisely the right word: faith. The "argument from authority" has always been given far too much importance. Rather than, say, the argument from reason, regardless of who makes it. Lister's germ theory wasn't exactly popular back in the day, either. Which wasn't primarily religious. Galileo, obviously, was. Schools in the US don't help, nor do archaic ten commandments, such as as obeying your father and mother (Well, sure, but not if they are twisted abusers, for example.)
Yes, I agree.
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
You're correct they lacked the balls, but the worry about losing one's job or position because of political correctness is a very palpable one. Let's put it this way. Authority can use as well as be cowed by political correctness to be ever more dogmatic and unreasonable. In Rotherham, PC empowered authority to be dogmatic because of such fear, rather than to stand up and look at the facts. So, yes, I believe PC was a significant factor in the way I described.
If this is true, then it wouldn't just be the police, but the authorities above the police, as well as the local media. But then again, if there was actual evidence of a crime which was covered up, then that would be a far more powerful weapon to use than PC. If PC was really that powerful, then one might well wonder how they manage to arrest any non-white person at all. And now that this case has come to light, is there anyone saying there shouldn't be further investigation due to PC?
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
In almost all cases, I would agree with you regarding special condemnations. Certainly, you cannot use 99% of the New Testament to justify atrocities and certainly not to justify pedophilia. But on the other hand I am absolutely sure you would agree with a special condemnation of Nazism or Maoism. Now those are not religions; they are political movements. As is precisely with Islam. Islam is a political movement under the cover of religion. It is jingoistically bent on world-domination, on the establishment of the Caliphate over all others,
Then you're talking about malignant nationalism, which can exist in any nation - or under any religion or political movement. Some forms of less malignant nationalism might be inclined more towards national liberation against Western imperialism (which is another form of malignant nationalism bent on world domination). German philosophy and political thought was dominated by malignant nationalism for at least half a century prior to WW1, and Nazism was basically the same, although perhaps more virulent and more hellbent on revenge than previous regimes. They weren't even against Western imperialism in principle; they just didn't like getting shut out of the game.
Maoism was quite a bit different, although I think Mao favored the idea of national liberation from imperialistic, hegemonic powers - without the malignancy of expansionism.
Islam also has a history of expansionism which I'm not overlooking, but in recent decades, their main focus has been more on liberation against Western hegemony.
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
including either death to the infidels or their paying a jizya in order to have permission to live in the Caliphate. I condemn Islam as a political movement with dangerous, evil beliefs, not as a religion with foolish beliefs. To your point about individuals, are there individual Muslims who don't understand this and who are innocents? Yes. Just as there were individual members of the Nazi party who likely didn't truly hate Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. and there were individual Maoists who were illiterate and had never read Mao's little red book.
Any belief system can be made malignant, and hate can be found in anyone and everyone.
We in the West have also contributed to the threat and created much of our own danger. We could have ameliorated the Nazi threat if our objectives and war aims in WW1 were more reasonable (such as a less punitive Treaty of Versailles). Before the Bolsheviks took over in Russia, the Provisional Government was calling for Peace Without Annexations or Indemnities. If we had played our cards right with both Germany and Russia at the right time, then there may not have been any threat to the West at all. It's all 20/20 hindsight now, but history has shown that whenever we try to bully other nations or go around the world with a chip on our shoulder, other nations do not react very kindly to that.
It's not all that different with our dealings in the Middle East and the Muslim world. However, in recent times, part of the problem has been our own government's myopia and ignorance about the region, largely viewing them as post-colonial pawns in the Cold War - not potential threats, in and of themselves. Our fear and hatred towards Soviet Russia and Red China clouded our reason and hindered our ability to formulate a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East. Also, our irrational religious attachments to the territory called the "Holy Land" has severely complicated matters. So, it's not just a matter of "them" radicalizing and becoming hellbent on world domination just for the hell of it. We've been adding fuel to their fire for a long, long time now.
And speaking of fuel, we've already revealed our main weakness to them, back in the 1970s. If it wasn't for our incessant thirst for oil and our shameless willingness to do anything to get it, we probably wouldn't even be in this situation today. We should have put our foot down back then, but instead, we just decided to kowtow to their price-gouging. We could have put our foot down with Iran in 1979, but didn't, not to mention trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair later on.
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Most estimates, including even ones made by liberal organizations such as Pew, put the number of seriously radicalized Muslims at over 100 million and possible up to 275 to 300 million. Muslims almost never condemn any atrocity (except ISIS), because they are scared or because they don't get it. Geert Wilders lives under 24/7 protection. Salman Rushdie did for years and still is very careful. Where is the Catholic critic who fears for his life from the Pope or any Bishop or Cardinal?
I'd be interested in knowing in how they actually reach such numbers of radicalized Muslims. Some people might believe that "silence means assent," although as you say, many are scared or intimidated from speaking out. On the other hand, it seems plausible that many of them are, politically, between a rock and a hard place. Personally, I have no experience with being bombed by a foreign air force, having foreign troops in my country, and/or being in a country in the grips of a civil war. However, I can see that such situations would generate a great deal of fear and hatred among the affected populations.
The Catholic Church has changed from what they once were. Western liberalism and secularism eventually gained the upper hand, and the Catholic Church had to move along with it. However, there are likely some other Christian churches which might be more prone to radicalism than others.
A lot of it may be due to the fact that, in times of trouble and there's nowhere else to turn, a lot of people turn to religion, for right or wrong. This is probably even more true in countries where the secular authorities are either corrupt, tyrannical, or foreign puppets. But the religionists are there and saying "Come join us, we will help you." They're not going to join the side of Western democracy, since we're not willing to offer them much...and they do hear the voices of those on our side who don't really like Muslims very much (which just goes to show that PC isn't that powerful). If they think that we believe they're "evil," then what other choice does that leave them?
|
|
|
|
