sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, you're saying the degree of closeness doesn't matter in regards to terrorism? Operationally it should matter a lot.
We are essentially discussing a matter of identity. Who one eats dinner with every weekend might matter for many things, but traditionally, it is not required to identify as a member of a group. Talking about operational necessity instead of identity is sort of changing the parameters of the question.
KnightExemplar wrote:If that's the only point you wish to say, then I can agree with that. This was clearly an terror attack perpetrated by a Muslim and a hate crime. And despite the conservative news saying otherwise, I heard Obama directly say "Inspired by ISIS". There's no conspiracy to hide the Muslim connections of this guy that I'm aware of. Even Washington Post is putting his faith on headlines. There's no issue here.
It became, an issue, I believe, because of the changing of the thread title.
Not a conspiracy, though. Don't think anyone's really pushing that.
Lazar wrote:You're seriously claiming that that line in Leviticus meant… nothing at all? That the Torah proscribes the death penalty for an offense which is ontologically impossible? There are centuries of scholarship and oral law in universal agreement that this is a prohibition on penetrative sex, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. And homosexual relations are forbidden at even greater length in the Quran, a point on which the hadiths and all major schools are in agreement.
No, I'm not. I'm saying the claim "The texts describe this in this exact manner and no amount of bending backwards to reinterpret this will change that" is false. The text doesn't claim that. The only way the text reads this way is, as you say, through scholarly interpretation.
You and Tyndmyr talk about the "historical use of the law" as if that's something that's inherently in the text. No, it's not, it's an interpretation. Is it likely interpretation? Perhaps. But I know for a fact there are streams in Judaism that support the reading that I described.
The religion is a thing made up of actual flesh and blood people. If they pretty much all interpret those words in a specific manner, then, that's what the religion believes.
You can try to twist words all you want, but a recent modern niche re-interpretation that makes the entire thing logically irrelevant, and prohibiting nothing is mere verbal fiction. A convenient way to justify keeping the "same" faith while changing the bits you dislike by redefining commonly understood words and phrases into nonsense.
Which, sure, go ahead and do that, but you're not entitled to pretend that your fiction defines the rest of the entire faith. And it doesn't change the actual words on paper, or the things millions of people actually did.
Tyndmyr wrote:They were quite alright with men having strong friendships, etc. Just, not so big on actual marriages and sex. Playing euphemism dodgeball doesn't avoid this fact, nor does it excuse the historical, yknow, putting people to death.
Marriage? Where is the prohibition against marriage? Where is the prohibition against relationships? Even the more strict interpretations consider it primarily the prohibition of a sexual act. And I can show you examples (once I get home) of marriage ceremonies between men conducted centuries ago, on a regular basis, by mainstream religious leaders.
Old timey marriage required consummation. That whole "one flesh" bit. And was big on marriage involving cranking out the kids.
Let's not pretend the ol' bible was all "suuure, gay people can be married, just not have sex". No such provision is made, and everything is written as if this were not an actual option. Even if this WERE the text, it'd still be pretty discriminatory, but this is a modern invention with no textual evidence for it.
WaterToFire wrote:It seems that the man has been unstable, violent, and homophobic, to some extent, for years. Do you think that the existence of ISIS "tipped him over the edge" and made him decide to kill a bunch of people? It seems that they didn't provide him with training, materials, or hatred -- he managed to acquire each of those on his own. So, did they inspire him to do it?
It seems like the core issue of the shooter's involvement with ISIS boils down to this:
If ISIS was not around, would he still have shot up that club using a different justification (would he have invoked Al Qaeda?) Or would he have remained bigoted but largely law-abiding (like most bigots)?
Of course we can't know for certain. But that seems to be the issue.
Who knows? I'm pretty sure that if the KKK folded, racists would still exist. But I'm also pretty sure that the KKK encourages racism. If someone embraces them, and they accept him back, and he does horrible racist shit, I'm ENTIRELY okay with condemnation all round. Even if he might have done it otherwise.
Tyndmyr wrote:Nonsense. There are cigarette smokers that have never gotten lung cancer, but it's definitely a cause of lung cancer.
We call smoking a cause of cancer because smoking in itself has a propensity to cause cancer, and tobacco in itself contains substances with a propensity to cause cancer, even if cancer doesn't materialize in a particular instance. But Islam, as a religion, doesn't have much that it's inherent to it. It is a historical and social entity, and as such is able to take on lots of different forms, including forms that don't condemn homosexuality, while remaining Islam.
Note the above statement regarding lack of acceptance of homosexuality by any significant subset, as well as the fact that Islam is disproportionately associated with terrorism at the moment. The idea that historical and social entities cannot be a cause of bad things is a curious one, and I would love to see you support it in a general fashion, extending it to other historically villainous social structures.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:My argument isn't that there are some Muslims who aren't homophobic, and therefore Islam doesn't cause homophobia. Rather, my argument is that it's a conceptual confusion to treat a religion as a monolith or ascribe causal powers to it.
Why is a religion unable to cause anything?
Is it special among power structures and beliefs? Do you believe that NO bad events(or indeed events at all) have been caused by belief in a religion?
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:As I've already said, it's incoherent (for a non-Muslim, anyway) to think that there's some "real deal Islam" that could be "overridden" by something.
None of us give a crap what is "real", theologically. That's utterly irrelevant. We're discussing the actions of people in the real world. And if a vast majority of the followers of the way of x claim it demands y, and then, they DO y, how is that not causality?
Lucrece wrote:You allow a majority of people, say those that run a country and vote to decide its decisions, to run the country according to their religious text, and in turn you get what most of the Middle East is for gay people. There's hardly a secular Muslim majority country equivalent to what we have in the west.
If homophobia is so inherent to Islam then why did the Ottomans decriminalize homosexual behavior a century before most of Europe and the Americas?
I think you're also continuing to make the "history is monotonic" error I mentioned upthread.
Hah. That was a burst of nationalism that tried to break down barriers between the different faiths and establish equality for all religions(sort of). That wasn't Islam itself being accepting. It was a pragmatic political move in a desperate bid for power, not a change in orthodoxy among the faithful.
One I have only seen here
suggests that it's a bad translation resulting from a grammatical error in the original, and that the verse only prohibits lying with a man in the bed of a woman
. I don't know enough about Hebrew to evaluate the argument, but it does seem to be the case that the word that gets translated to "as with" in most English versions of Leviticus gets translated to "bed" back in Genesis.
Context dependent translation. Lying in the bed of a woman is *also* a euphemism for sex. The specific English chosen is only to properly convey the meaning.
leady wrote:I'm not sure how to respond to that level of denial.
What level of denial? If you're counting mass shootings differently, say so. If you're counting "inspired by Islam" to account for more than just "carried out by a Muslim", say so.
What specifically do you think we are denying?
This topic has come up before here. Long story short, no matter how you prefer to count the numbers, it turns out Islamic killers kill more people. You can try to fudge things around by contaminating the data by lowering the bar to include random crimes, and thus, make it hard to verify each event. You can ignore that they are a pretty small minority, and thus, a majority of shootings are not Islamic in nature in absolute numbers. But if you avoid highly motivated reasoning, it's reasonably obvious that, even in the US, Islam has a violence problem.