I wasn't trying to be persuasive. I was just stating the obvious with extra emphasis on what I consider most important. — T Clark

Fair enough.

The implicit premise of your arguments is <Secularism never transgresses religious tolerance>, and I take it that this is the erroneous premise. — Leontiskos

Ah, but then it's theology that you want to discuss (hello, BTW). Indeed, when I formulated my initial argument, I did something subtle, which I'm not sure if anyone has detected yet, but you're the one that got the closest so far, @Leontiskos.

The intent behind my initial argument, is that I made it compatible not just with the POV of the secular West, but also with the POV of jihadists themselves (at least, to the best of my ability). Here's how that works. Let's agree to take Wikipedia's words for what jihadism actually is:

Jihadism is a neologism for modern armed Islamic movements that seek to base the state on Islamic principles. In a narrower sense, it refers to the belief that armed confrontation is a theologically legitimate method of socio-political change towards an Islamic system of governance. — Wikipedia

It literally says that jihadists want to base the state on Islamic principles. That, is incompatible with secularism. Why? Well, let's take a look at the wiki for the word "secularism":

Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere. — Wikipedia

"(...) separation of religion from civil affairs and the state", it literally says. So, you see, @Leontiskos, it is the jihadists themselves who claim that jihadism and secularism are incompatible. In that sense, my initial argument works against them.

Or at least I think it does.

So, you see, Leontiskos, it is the jihadists themselves who claim that jihadism and secularism are incompatible. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, of course they claim that. But do they claim that the one who is intolerant of Jihadists is still practicing religious tolerance?

I think my original point stands. I am not questioning the idea that secularism and Jihadism are incompatible. I am questioning the idea that one can be intolerant of a religion and still be practicing religious tolerance.

I did something subtle — Arcane Sandwich

The subtlety that I picked up was using "the concept of religious tolerance" rather than simply "religious tolerance." This could mean that there is some specialized concept. For example, in the West we don't consider militant religions real religions, and this allows us to think that intolerance of such religions does not transgress religious tolerance.

• If I am intolerant of a religion then I am not practicing religious tolerance
• Jihadism is a religion (or a religious tenet)
• Therefore, if I am intolerant of Jihadism then I am not practicing religious tolerance

Do you disagree with that argument?

And at the heart of this what I see happening is that Jihadists transgress the basic dogma of secularism, which is that the power of coercion/force belongs only to the state. Anyone who transgresses that dogma forfeits all rights, and particularly the right to be tolerated. The secular tenet of "religious tolerance" is at best second-tier. It is easily trumped by the more basic dogmas. Cf. "A fire strong enough to consume the house : the wars of religion and the rise of the nation state."

Secularism aside, there is also the natural end of self-preservation, such that anyone who tries to eliminate you forfeits their right to be tolerated. "Religious tolerance" also tends to be trumped by this natural end, and for this reason any state—secular or otherwise—will tend to repel Jihadists.

For example, in the West we don't consider militant religions real religions, — Leontiskos

That's one of my main points, here. In the West (and not just the West, actually) someone can't just claim that their own particular group of people "are a real religion". Why not? Because then they can file for tax exemption. I'm aware that might sound incredibly dumb to you. But let's not underestimate the bureaucratic power of the IRS or the equivalent to the IRS in a country like Argentina. Like, those federal entities are not just going to happily give everyone free money just out of the goodness of their hearts. Religious tolerance does not work like that on a federal level. How does it work? Well, you're either part of a religion that the IRS recognizes, or you prove to the IRS that your "new" religion is actually a "real" religion as far as federal tax collecting is concerned.

See my point?

Do you disagree with that argument? — Leontiskos

I'm not sure. I need more time to think about it.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression.

Okay, cool, that's a lot different from what you were saying. We can actually discuss this.

Do you think there might need to be something at work in one's brain other than an appreciation of how horrible US middle east policy is to get one to blow oneself up on a bus and kill dozens of innocent people while yelling words of praise to one's God? That isn't meant to be snarky; I genuinely wonder how you might rationalize what seems obvious to me: radical interpretations of scripture in the Quran tend towards producing mass-murdering maniacs at a (relatively) high rate. I consider that to be partially a problem with Islam, as those scriptures are given meaning by shared interpretations of a shared book. Although I think our policy definitely factors into the attitudes of jihadists heavily, and almost certainly fuels radicalization, one group just seems to be consistently more belligerent, at least in terms of acting violently for religious reasons, than others.

None of that justifies our barbaric policies or actions, or our potentially worse belligerence on the world stage, of course. I mean just look at our support of the genocide of the Palestinians. There is clearly no justification for that.

radical interpretations of scripture in the Quran tend towards producing mass-murdering maniacs at a (relatively) high rate. — ToothyMaw

How do we know that these interpretations are radical in the sense of aberrant or misguided vis-a-vis the Quran? Muhammad conquered much land to establish an Islamic society. Muhammad himself was a jihadist and Muhammad is held up to be the paragon of moral excellence in Islam.

Maybe it's all perfectly by the book and in the example of their founder.

A few days ago I heard an imam say that that there's no way to lose on the battlefield versus a zionist. Either you kill the zionist, or the zionist kills you and you go to Islamic paradise (Jannah.) Who are we to tell him his interpretation is wrong??

How do we know that these interpretations are radical in the sense of aberrant or misguided vis-a-vis the Quran? — BitconnectCarlos

Easy: You let the Federal government decide that. They have to, otherwise the IRS wouldn't have the bureaucratic power that it has.

See my point? — Arcane Sandwich

Sort of, but does the "religion" in "religious tolerance" exclude Islamic Jihadis? If so, why? Why is Jihadism not religious?

Sort of, but does the "religion" in "religious tolerance" exclude Islamic Jihadis? If so, why? — Leontiskos

It is my understanding (and I could be wrong here) that any organization that claims that they want the state to be based on their religious principles, and that they are willing to resort to armed violence to do that, for theological reasons (instead of political reasons, for example) cannot invoke the protection granted by the right to religious tolerance.

In simpler terms: if your armed group wants to take over the White House for religious reasons, then, from a federal point of view, your armed group cannot invoke religious protection as an excuse to commit a federal crime.

Searching through scripture to determine theological truth/ what is "real" Islam is not a normal or proper function of the US government.

Searching through scripture to determine theological truth/ what is "real" Islam is not a normal or proper function of the US government. — BitconnectCarlos

It is when the IRS has to recognize the religious status of a new religion, if only for the purpose of federal tax collection. Not just in the US, but in every country that has an equivalent federal entity.

Yes, that's right, but I don't understand why we are talking about the IRS or the state.

Suppose a state has a law against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now suppose they prohibit a Jihadi from exercising their religion. I would submit that what is occurring is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion, which is religious intolerance. I think the state would acknowledge this and say, "Free exercise of religion is not unconditional."

But note that religious tolerance and free exercise of religion is precisely what is not occurring in this scenario. It is being overridden by a higher law.

Suppose a state has a law against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. — Leontiskos

But that's one of my other points: no state in the West, no country in the West, prohibits the free exercise of religion. It only establishes a distinction between what is a religion and what is just a group of people that want to be recognized as such (as a religion, that is) by the state or country in question.

And this isn't just a Western thing. Several countries in the East function in more or less the same way.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression. — NOS4A2

Does the existence of Islamic reformers actually constitute oppression of jihadists, though? If anything, jihadists would be the ones inclined to impose their own political and religious beliefs on others, probably through force or armed conflict by definition. I mean, they literally want to establish a state based on Islamic principles. I don't see how they couldn't transgress others' rights in the process, and I can't think of many plausible things more antithetical to freedom. Shouldn't a libertarian like yourself have some sympathy for those reformers who want some freedom for themselves?

British, French, American (et al) activities in the Middle East have triggered reactions among various ethnic and religious groups--not least among them founding the state of Israel. This has been discussed extensively and I don't have anything new to add to the topic.

But I would like to raise a related issue: how do we deal with militant politico-religious groups anywhere, including our own?

How do we deal with American Christian Nationalism? Who is responsible for 'causing' it? Should it be stamped out? Should it be punished? Forbidden? Who has the responsibility for solving the problem of American Christian Nationalism?

I'm not claiming that our far-right extremists are no different than Jihadists. I'm just wondering whether we have enough insight into extreme political and religious behavior to deal with either one effectively.

In my opinion, extreme political / religious behavior, whether Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or what have you is NOT compatible with secular societies (which, of course, can contain actively religious citizens). Recognizing it as incompatible, however, doesn't tell us what to do about it, at home or abroad.

How do we deal with American Christian Nationalism? Who is responsible for 'causing' it? Should it be stamped out? Should it be punished? Forbidden? Who has the responsibility for solving the problem of American Christian Nationalism? — BC

I've arrived at the conclusion that the simplest, most practical solution is to just be a reductionist about this. How so? Like this:

if your armed group wants to take over the White House for religious reasons, then, from a federal point of view, your armed group cannot invoke religious protection as an excuse to commit a federal crime. — Arcane Sandwich

In other words: if you want to take over the White House in the name of Jesus, then you can't say that you were discriminated by federal agents after they arrest you for committing a federal crime. Well, you can say it if you want to, but it won't hold up in court.

But that's one of my other points: no state in the West, no country in the West, prohibits the free exercise of religion. — Arcane Sandwich

But why think that? Is it only because "religion" gets defined in a way that makes the claim true by definition? "Anything we are intolerant of is by definition not religion"?

The reason the U.S. has a First Amendment is because those rights are often transgressed by states. The First Amendment gives citizens legal recourse when the state prohibits the free exercise of religion, which it is prone to do.

Right; a group of armed Fascists for Jesus seizing the White House shouldn't have free speech / freedom of religion defense in court. However, they wouldn't need guns to seize the White House if a sympathetic candidate were duly elected to the presidency [How could that POSSIBLY happen?]

The reason the U.S. has a First Amendment is because those rights are often transgressed by states. — Leontiskos

Sure. But suppose the following, just for the sake of argument. Suppose that you tell me that you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that this particular belief of yours is a religious belief, and that you are known as a Pastafarian. Suppose that I tell you that your beliefs are stupid. You cannot lawfully accuse me of religious discrimination in that scenario, because Pastafarianism is not a religion. Why not? Because no state or country recognizes it as such. If you want to say that I'm being intolerant anyways, sure. But not religiously.

Why not? Because no state or country recognizes it as such. — Arcane Sandwich

What I would say is that it is not a religion because it is not a religion, and this is unrelated to what states or countries recognize. Talking about states, countries, or the IRS seems to simply pass the buck. For example:

Easy: You let the Federal government decide that. — Arcane Sandwich

The substantive question is about how the matter is decided, and this means that, first, the Federal government must itself engage that substantive question in determining what is and is not a religion, and second, the Federal government could get the question wrong. "The Federal government said it's a religion therefore it must be a religion," is not a valid argument.

And again, I don't think the courts would rule that Jihadism is not a religion. I think they would rule that freedom of religion is not unconditional. It seems clear to me that Jihadism is a religion (or a religious tenet).

Right, but the topic of Pastafarianism specifically did end up in court, so it's not a complete hypothetical:

A federal court in the US state of Nebraska ruled that Flying Spaghetti Monster is a satirical parody religion, rather than an actual religion, and as a result, Pastafarians are not entitled to religious accommodation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act:

"This is not a question of theology", the ruling reads in part. "The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a 'religious exercise' on any other work of fiction."[87]

Pastafarians have used their claimed faith as a test case to argue for freedom of religion, and to oppose government discrimination against people who do not follow a recognized religion. — Wikipedia

- Sure, but they gave substantive reasoning. They didn't say, "Because no state or country recognizes it as such."

Well, that's what they were told, initially. It's what every sect gets told, because it's the simple truth: no state or country recognizes such a group as practicing a religion, as the federal government understands the word "religion". If they want to "prove it to the feds" that they are a religious group, they can do so. That is in fact how Scientology, for example, triumphed over the IRS.

But the really sinister cases are the ones involving cults, like what happened way back in Waco, Texas.

It seems clear to me that Jihadism is a religion (or a religious tenet). — Leontiskos

Jihad is a religious tenet.

Jihadism seems pejorative, so I looked it up and got this:

"Jihadism refers to militant Islamic movements that use violence to achieve their political and religious goals.

Jihadism is not representative of Islam as a whole. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide condemn violence and terrorism in all forms."

So jihad is legitimate, but jihadism is apparently what the "bad muslims" do. But did Muhammad not use violence to expand the influence of Islam? It doesn't make sense to me, but apparently a distinction is drawn between the valid "jihad" and the invalid, extremist "jihadism" which is clearly pejorative.


 

So jihad is legitimate, but jihadism is apparently what the "bad muslims" do. But did Muhammad not use violence to expand the influence of Islam? — BitconnectCarlos

Is that a political question, or a theological question? If it's neither and it's "just a simple question", then someone might as well ask (due to parity of reasoning): So the Crusade is legitimate, but "crusader-ism" is apparently what the "bad Christians" do. But did Jesus not use violence to expand the influence of Christianity?

EDIT: Now try asking that question, but with the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Pastafarians. You will notice quite a difference.

It is a historical question. And of course he did. So I'm asking couldn't Muhammad be considered a jihadist?

So I'm asking couldn't Muhammad be considered a jihadist? — BitconnectCarlos

And a jihadist could ask you the following question: couldn't Jesus be considered a Crusader?

No, I would not consider Jesus a crusader.

No, I would not consider Jesus a crusader. — BitconnectCarlos

Then that is the difference between a Christian and a fanatical Christian. A Muslim will tell you that Muhammed could not be considered a jihadist either. However, fanatical Muslims (i.e., jihadists) would argue otherwise, just as a fanatical Christian would argue otherwise.