Why do I have to "coexist peacefully" with an unjust medieval tradition? — absoluteaspiration

Why should they coexist peacefully with an unjust secular tradition?

I want to live in a society where I'm free to tell the world the pain I suffered because of their hypocrisy.

Just listen to yourself. You expect justice and redress from the very people you consider unjust (and all kinds of bad).
Do you really think that's a sane expectation??

And what do you think will happen if you tell the world "the pain you suffered because of their hypocrisy"?
Why should they care about you and your pain? Can you explain? Can you spell it out?

I think we have every age we passed through as part of our personalities. The teenage part of me is still partly here. I just sort of outgrew him. I think that being unable to vocalize strong traumatic emotions from the past can lead to mental illness if present experiences trigger them. For example, if I never conceptualize in words how I felt about my mother, I may grow to irrationally resent a boss who reminds me of her.

, you know, they might be Rushdie fans who are afraid to speak out. — absoluteaspiration

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!"

Isn't it?

No, it's not fine. We cannot peacefully coexist that way. — baker

Ok. Bye.

And what I see more so unfortunately is an attempt to derail the thread into one over hypocrisy and strained attempts at moral equivalency — Hanover

On the contrary. In order to be able to judge others from the moral high ground, one actually has to hold the moral high ground.

If it can be pointed out that a prospective judge does not hold such a moral high ground, his judgment is at least suspect.

He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

as opposed to better understanding why a religious leader would send marching orders to murder an author

Because the religious leader believes he has the divine authority to do so.

That you don't believe he has such divine authority is on you, not on him.

And I'm really not coming after you so much for this, but just responding to you from how another poster who I generally ignore has responded in the hopes of better explaining my position.

You keep complaining about how religion is treated poorly at this forum. I'm offering some explanations as to why.
For me, the main reason why religions aren't credible is insofar they are worldly, secular, and insofar religious people themselves relativize their own doctrines.

Anyway, I'm fine with emotion, passion and hostility when it comes to things like this that matter. — Hanover

There you go. With passion, and hostility, it all goes downhill. Once you approve of passion and hostility, how can you expect anything other but killing, raping, and pillaging?

I've already stated this the best I could, which is that my best guess is that there is not the impetus upon public condemnation within that community that there is other communities, and I'm not clear exactly where that arises from. — Hanover

Like I already said, I think it's because at least some religious people have a strong sense of religious autonomy, and so see no need to make themselves seem credible to others, or to seek to be understood by others. So they don't explain themselves to others.

A classical example with this is when atheists request theists to provide proof of God. The atheists claim that the burden of proof is on the theists, yet the theists don't consider themselves as having that burden at all (and that instead, if anything, the burden is on the atheists).

No, I want you to understand why disagreement on important topics makes peaceful coexistence impossible.

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!" — Tate

Only if they are committed to secularism.

I don't consider them bad, necessarily. I consider their tradition bad. I think they should at the very least reform their tradition. Currently, their "tradition" is not even particularly traditional. I don't have to spell out how they made me feel because, thankfully, Rushdie did it for me.

You seem to be under the impression that Muslims irrationally defend Islam whenever possible. This is not true. Muslims criticize aspects of their society like everyone else. If you don't believe me, I believe there is a YouTube channel called something like Islamic Center of Orange County. Watch the most popular videos on that channel. (I will clarify if I remembered the name wrong.)

And if you internalized some other psychological theory, you'd speak differently.

I think they should at the very least reform their tradition. — absoluteaspiration

Why do you need them or their tradition to be different than they are?
Because you're not in control of your feelings?

You seem to be under the impression that Muslims irrationally defend Islam whenever possible.

No, I'm not under that impression. It's not clear why you think that.

There is tons of clinical evidence for the barebones theory I laid out. It's still used in contemporary psychology. I didn't mention any of Freud's many versions of the Father figure.

Yes, obviously. Islam is committed to human flourishing. They should change their tradition so that it's nicer to me.

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!" — Tate

7

So you asked what I meant earlier and I didn't respond because it was clear to me you did, and this is the point I was making. Is there a duty to speak truth to power, damn the consequences?

Surely, after Trump's America, you have some experience with how demoralizing conservative hypocrisy can be.

So you asked what I meant earlier and I didn't respond — Hanover

You used the word "community". I still don't know what community you mean. In the US? The global community? Iran? Shiites?

Is there a duty to speak truth to power, damn the consequences? — Hanover

If you don't, your culture will erode. There has to be a moral backbone for a culture to grow and thrive. Holy people have that responsibility more than anyone else.

Surely, after Trump's America, you have some experience with how demoralizing conservative hypocrisy can be. — absoluteaspiration

Yes. It's incredibly demoralizing. And he's likely to be elected again. Jesus.

Yes. When people behave in ways that one thinks are anti-social, uncivilized, or immoral, one must condemn it. One must disavow the unacceptable action.

From time to time, we witness acts that are "bad", whether that's stabbing authors or shooting the convenience store clerk; stealing catalytic converters or defrauding the Medicare program; trying to overthrow the election or seize the neighboring country. We can't be indifferent. We need to be clear to ourselves (and to whoever is in earshot) that we condemn wrongdoing.

From the OP:

I Googled looking for the Muslim reaction to the attack and found nothing in the way of Muslim leadership condemning it. — Hanover

You used the word "community". I still don't know what community you mean. In the US? The global community? Iran? Shiites? — Tate

The OP was clearly about the Muslim reaction, later focused to Shias, then some reopening it to Sunnis as well. I'm confused why you're confused. This whole conversation has been about my difficultly understanding why the reaction has been difficult to decipher.

That's why I responded to you as I did. Where was all this ground lost and then needing re-plowed?

Beats me. Maybe that clarifies?

I don't think current Trumpist reactions cover all Christian violence in America. Off the top of my head: Violence against gay people used to be very common. Even in recent times, there have been bombings of abortion clinics.

Violence against gay people used to be very common. — absoluteaspiration

I don't think homophobia is specifically Christian.

I agree that clerics should be more affirmative about freedom. But the Islamic world has never been very free. Like in Russia, it's hard for people to believe in freedom for very long when money flows reinforce tyranny. The people who are committed to freedom usually try to move elsewhere.

That's why I responded to you as I did. Where was all this ground lost and then needing re-plowed? — Hanover

The guy you banned spent some time explaining how fragmented Islam is. Then you mentioned "that community.". I see now that I was supposed to read that as the global Muslim community, which the guy you banned said doesn't really exist, which is true.

When people behave in ways that one thinks are anti-social, uncivilized, or immoral, one must condemn it. One must disavow the unacceptable action. — Bitter Crank

And I think that's the gist of this whole thing, which is that the West holds speech as holy, both in the right to offend and duty to protect. It's primary. We perceive it fatally wrong to be told we can't express our wrongness and we feel a piwerful imperative to speak against injustice.

So that's what makes this thing stick in my craw. Rushdie was being told to shut up, and when he was physically attacked for it, the speech reaction from those best positioned to be heard didn't scream.

It's a realization of what free speech means to Western morality. An interesting revelation for me, at least.

Back to my theological musings now. I don't know enough about the Koran for a comparative analysis, but thematic to the OT is the power to create the universe from speech acts alone and for humans to challenge the authority of God, offering foundational support for where this free speech protection emphasis distinction arises.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it's an interesting thesis.

Until the 20th century, Europeans considered Muslims to be notorious sodomites. Homosexuality proliferated in Islamic society because it was very difficult to get multiple witnesses to swear that you had gay sex. A lot of gay poems also circulated under the cover of Sufi poetry that addresses Allah as The Beloved.

The guy you banned spent some time explaining how fragmented Islam is. Then you mentioned "that community.". I see now that I was supposed to read that as the global Muslim community, which the guy you banned said doesn't really exist, which is true. — Tate

No, now I see my initial assumption of the bad faith basis of your question was correct. You weren't confused, and I regret attempting to clarify. I didn't say the entire Muslim community in my last post. I explained it was the entire community at first, clarified to be Shiah, then opened by others back to the community. I contextualuzed what occurred, which is what I asked you do the first time, but such wasn't your desire.

Until the 20th century, Europeans considered Muslims to be notorious sodomites — absoluteaspiration

I didn't know that. Wasn't there a Muslim who shot up a gay nightclub in Florida?

No, now I see my initial assumption of the bad faith basis of your question was correct. — Hanover

I have no idea how you got this impression. Why don't we ignore one another from now on? :smile:

"Western" morality is ambiguous phrasing. Free speech was not considered a right in the West until enlightenment thinkers like Locke. A lot of these enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were inspired by their idea of "Turkish society", where they believed multiple religions lived and worked side by side. That was an exaggeration, but not incorrect as a comparative statement vis a vis Europe at the time.

Western" morality is ambiguous phrasing. Free speech was not considered a right in the West until enlightenment thinkers like Locke. A lot of these enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were inspired by their idea of "Turkish society", where they believed multiple religions lived and worked side by side. That was an exaggeration, but not incorrect as a comparative statement vis a vis Europe at the time. — absoluteaspiration

Sure, it's a broad based theory that requires some tinkering, but I'm not in agreement that the power of speech and its special status can only be traced to the Enlightenment.

Yes, but I don't know where Islam says you can take the law into your own hands like that. If you know, please tell me. I do know that Zoroastrianism allows you to kill gay people where they stand, and doing so forgives your sins. (It says so in the Vendidad.) I think the movie 300 depicted the Ancient Persians in line with the old European conception of Muslims as lascivious degenerates.