Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: An4ximandros on March 06, 2014, 09:40:29 pm
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-centralafrican-un-idUSBREA2520Z20140306?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
For an example of just how bad absolutely FUBAR the situation is right now: Exhibit A (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25708024)
-
Gotta love the tribal mentality.
-
Now, I'm not knowledgeable on any of this and am appealing to the knowledge that HLP possesses.
Hasn't the same sort of situation occurred within the Middle-East against Christans (and/or Jews/Muslims/other) depending on the location?
and If so, did the UN ever consider sending such a force to assist in those areas? If not, why does the C.A.R receive such attention?
Never would have noticed this, with all the attention Russia and the Ukraine are receiving.
-
i don't remember hearing about anyone eating christians, no
-
Also this proposal is still "under consideration" and hasn't been approved. I would imagine plenty of proposals never make it past this stage or get much traction in the press. In addition inserting a peace keeping force into the CAR is likely more realistic than occupying a middle eastern nation with foreign troops.
-
Would have been nice had there not been any religious persecution of the christians to start with the islamic take over of the government.
-
...
I don't think they has been much in the mid east in the way of major christian persecutions, I think there was a bit in Egypt following the rebellion, but generally there are not really many Christians there to persecute.
What you are probably thinking about is Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. Central Africa (not C.A.R. specifically, but everything south of the desert and north of South Africa) is, has, and by all evidence continues to be a huge chaotic mass of blood and terror for everyone involved. There have been countless genocides of Christians there over the last few years centuries, as well as any other sub group you can imagine. they all got lots of talk and little action as I imagine this will as well.
-
Now, I'm not knowledgeable on any of this and am appealing to the knowledge that HLP possesses.
Hasn't the same sort of situation occurred within the Middle-East against Christans (and/or Jews/Muslims/other) depending on the location?
and If so, did the UN ever consider sending such a force to assist in those areas? If not, why does the C.A.R receive such attention?
Never would have noticed this, with all the attention Russia and the Ukraine are receiving.
So, I'm going to ask one very simple, very significant question:
Even if it had, is that reason to leave innocent people to be brutally murdered?
The correct answer is no.
-
Thanks Bobboau.
Scotty, my questions before were based on what very limited knowledge I currently possess, and hence are incredibly flawed.
I agree 100% with your statement. Thanks!
Even if it had, is that reason to leave innocent people to be brutally murdered?
The correct answer is no.
-
Oh boy, next time I'm complaining about my country I'll try remembering this.
-
Huzzah.
So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.
-
This just goes to show Christian extremists aren't any better than Muslim ones. Really, ultimately, it doesn't matter what superstition they believe in, only that they believe in it strongly enough to start killing people about it. Such massacres have very little to do with the actual teachings of either religion, but it's not like this ever stopped anyone. The only religion I haven't seen used as an excuse for a nutcase behavior is Buddhism, and that's probably because I don't live around the area where it's common (also, it requires you to think, which is generally enough to deter most primitives from it. Genocidal extremists usually are rather primitive).
Well, that, and Pastafaranism. But that one's too new and too small to have had it's chance yet.
-
Nope, I thought that too, but then someone pointed out some 'devout' Buddhist Japanese people in WWII. Although that was in the context of "Buddhists actually abide by the nonviolence stuff", not "Buddhists are non-genocidal"... and the example was a high-ranking navy officer, so presumably not one of the "let's do experiments on the POWs" guys.
Pastafarianism is really just atheists (just like the Church of Satan is atheists (look it up)).
-
glad to see the crusades are still going on strong. murder is good for the soul.
-
This just goes to show Christian extremists aren't any better than Muslim ones. Really, ultimately, it doesn't matter what superstition they believe in, only that they believe in it strongly enough to start killing people about it. Such massacres have very little to do with the actual teachings of either religion, but it's not like this ever stopped anyone. The only religion I haven't seen used as an excuse for a nutcase behavior is Buddhism, and that's probably because I don't live around the area where it's common (also, it requires you to think, which is generally enough to deter most primitives from it. Genocidal extremists usually are rather primitive).
Well, that, and Pastafaranism. But that one's too new and too small to have had it's chance yet.
There is so much debasing that is happening in religion that it's stupid. The extremist muslims are alright with debasing themselves to violence and non-acceptane of others. The christian majority population have been deeply criticized and persecuted. Yes, they will act. How to act accordingly? I think that the christians could act better if they themselves didn't debase themselves to the muslim extremists. You want muslims out of your neighborhood? Fine, you can do it without death. Mass evictions would still lead to the muslim population leaving as it is currently doing so.
Everything is without a target leaving the objective too broad to have any kind of meaning. The christians are doing the same as when the muslims took over. Nothing will be learned except that no religion should persecute another. If this lesson will be learned in c.a.r.
Although i must disagree about buddhist monks. Buddhist monks from the 969 movement would have you in disbelief. And, muslims most likely did many things to provoke people to act against them. Must have been pretty bad if they pissed off monks. Maybe it'd be nice if people of any religion didn't insist on being treating others like crap (especially when they are the minority at times).
We have a nice thing going on in america here with freedom of speech and islam. Basicly it goes after not pissing off the muslims so you don't die or have something nasty happen to you.
Islam in this new century will definitely learn to temper itself, the sooner, the better, the less muslims that will get slaughtered. Because it's all just stupid with this religious non-acceptance of other people and their beliefs.
-
Problem is most pervasive religions tend to have an assortment of teachings about spreading the word and converting the others and everyone who is not us is bad. Many religions have in recent years learned to ignore that component, it is still present. Its hard to be excepting of others when yours is the one true way, written perfectly, descended from the gods themselves. because if you don't force those damned heathens into worshiping the correct god in the correct manor they are going to burn for all eternity, and not only that but you have an absolute mandate from the ruler of the universe to do so.
-
This eventually gets down to hypocrisy, such as kill the heathens; just bypass a step. Islam needs to modernize. There are plenty of modernized muslims out there of course. But, holy war and extremist religious people need to get shed from any religion, and then eventually, religion itself can be shed.
So what is offense? One thing is when people tell me i'm going to go to hell. I tell people who tell me i am going to hell quite directly to **** off. Part of the attack happens because anybody that knows me knows that i denounce religion even though i believe in god and read the bible (god and religion are things i believe can be separated), and that i don't let them manipulate me. In reality, how dare anyone say that they know what's going to happen to your soul when your meat suit fails. In light of that, how dare anyone say that they speak for, or on behalf of god (such a big corruption on belief in god to manipulate others).
The other part offense is that they believe that they are morally and religiously superior to me. These people i don't tell to **** off directly and just let my tolerance and acceptance of others piss them off even more. I'm almost damn well convinced that most christians just hate jesus and his teachings through their actions, selfishness, and corruption.
In short, it's all so saddening, because one of the first things to go in religion is humanity because of intolerance. Not many realize that only humans care if you were a good christian, muslim, buddhist, etc., and that the higher powers that be doesn't.
-
How do you know they don't?
Anyways, yes, let's not start degenerating this thread into the usual "Look christians are bad, catholics are worse, but islam is even worse" etc. There is a lot of heterogeneity in these groups and I don't think these generalizations are useful... what is going on here is just awful and I hope there is someone or something that will stop it before it goes to its logical conclusion.
-
Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.
-
Huzzah.
So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.
Just throwing that out there, to, you know, suggest that maybe these Muslims deserve it? Because if that's not what you're trying to imply, I think you'd best clarify quick.
Islam's problems with extremism over the last few decades have much more to do with the geopolitical position of Muslim populations than they do with any core doctrinal tenets of the faith. Most religion is prone to extremism because by nature religion attempts to define superordinate tenets for behavior, and these tenets ask believers to take action in the material world. It's not a problem unique to Islam or Christianity. It may not even be a problem unique to religion as a class of structure.
Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.
Not particularly, and please don't backseat moderate. If you want to get involved with the thread, contribute. (you can also set more, ah, doctrinaire polemics to ignore)
-
Problem is most pervasive religions tend to have an assortment of teachings about spreading the word and converting the others [...]. Many religions have in recent years learned to ignore that component, it is still present.
Ignoring it is difficult, as it is logical that such people, often being spirituality fulfilled, want to share this reality with others. Not doing so is often perceived as being selfish (you're keeping happiness all for yourself). The problem is when people start being pushy (or supporting their arguments with a machine gun).
In reality, how dare anyone say that they know what's going to happen to your soul when your meat suit fails. In light of that, how dare anyone say that they speak for, or on behalf of god (such a big corruption on belief in god to manipulate others).
This is sad, especially because condemning somebody is often a sin itself in a religion. I think the problem is that people really don't know how to hold sensible discussions, although I wouldn't attribute it only to religion. There will always be a (flawed) reason that will make the other person "bad" or "inferior", although I understand the logic behind seeing religion as the main obstacle.
EDIT: Having said that, I wonder whether there is any action taken by local religious leaders to condemn the violence and whether this is approved by locals.
-
Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.
Not particularly, and please don't backseat moderate. If you want to get involved with the thread, contribute. (you can also set more, ah, doctrinaire polemics to ignore)
Just saying, there's a high risk of flame war here, and there's already been some borderline flaming.
Unfortunately, religion (like anything of value) can be easily hijacked by people with more selfish ends in mind. It's easy to make people of a certain creed a scapegoat, or use their creed as an excuse to get them out of your way. But ultimately, you're violating the principles of your own religion if you do that.
-
Going off what Luis said, let's all be careful what we say. This thread looks dangerously close to a flame war.
Not particularly, and please don't backseat moderate. If you want to get involved with the thread, contribute. (you can also set more, ah, doctrinaire polemics to ignore)
Just saying, there's a high risk of flame war here, and there's already been some borderline flaming.
This sort of comment isn't useful though, and quite definitely falls under the kind of thing we do not want to see. It adds nothing to the conversation, and as such, is largely uninteresting to the other participants in the thread. If you think a thread has the potential to go off the rails, you can try to steer it back by actively contributing to it. Don't try to meta-comment unless a discussion truly has gone off the deep end (and even then, reporting the thread is the recommended course of action, not vigilanteeism).
-
I'd also like to remind everyone present that making ignorant, uneducated, or idiotic statements about a group of people, deliberate, satirical, or otherwise, is not flaming. It will be addressed, usually by other posters in a generally constructive way, and it may very well be against site policy (Be Respectful), but it isn't in and of itself flaming.
-
I think the lesson to take away from this is that the world sucks in general, but there are certain parts of the world that really, REALLY suck. And unfortunately it's usually the normal people just trying to live their lives who suffer the most.
-
I'd also like to remind everyone present that making ignorant, uneducated, or idiotic statements about a group of people, deliberate, satirical, or otherwise, is not flaming. It will be addressed, usually by other posters in a generally constructive way, and it may very well be against site policy (Be Respectful), but it isn't in and of itself flaming.
Ok then, if that's HLP's definition of flaming. As long as it isn't considered OK.
-
What I was trying to get it is that there are moderators watching this (and most) topic(s), and aside from reporting a post you think crosses the line you shouldn't try to involve yourself in moderating a thread.
-
What I was trying to get it is that there are moderators watching this (and most) topic(s), and aside from reporting a post you think crosses the line you shouldn't try to involve yourself in moderating a thread.
That's good to know. I'll leave it to you then.
-
Huzzah.
So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.
Just throwing that out there, to, you know, suggest that maybe these Muslims deserve it? Because if that's not what you're trying to imply, I think you'd best clarify quick.
Or maybe I literally meant "just throwing that out there" because I wasn't trying to imply anything, but I thought of something relevant to the discussion and couldn't be bothered to think of a better segue.
Alternatively:
"A lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). Discuss."
-
What Islamic states do is of little connection to what a modern Muslim (not really an average one yet, but slowly getting there) thinks or does. What they decide in Saudi Arabia (the closest thing Islam has to a centralized religious authority) doesn't have to be accepted by Muslims around the world. Indeed, since Saudi version of Islam is a particularly unimaginative and literal one, quite a few don't agree with them, even if they are Sunni. Much like being a Catholic does not mean you're agreeing with Vatican on everything. Most Islamic states happen to be in a generally primitive region, where bigotry is the norm rather than an exception. It's their geographic position and history that are the causes of this, not religion, and if a Christian state was in the same region, same things would probably happen there (as the C.A.R. example showed). Really, in all those conflicts, religion is just another excuse. Ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation have all been used that way as well.
-
How do you know they don't?
Anyways, yes, let's not start degenerating this thread into the usual "Look christians are bad, catholics are worse, but islam is even worse" etc. There is a lot of heterogeneity in these groups and I don't think these generalizations are useful... what is going on here is just awful and I hope there is someone or something that will stop it before it goes to its logical conclusion.
How do i know they don't what? Which of the points that i made are you referring to?
I'm not attempting to degenerate the thread either. I was pointing out that there are flawed people in all religions, not any specific ones.
-
Huzzah.
So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.
Just throwing that out there, to, you know, suggest that maybe these Muslims deserve it? Because if that's not what you're trying to imply, I think you'd best clarify quick.
Or maybe I literally meant "just throwing that out there" because I wasn't trying to imply anything, but I thought of something relevant to the discussion and couldn't be bothered to think of a better segue.
Alternatively:
"A lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). Discuss."
No, you can't throw out a statement that strongly implies something, say 'discuss', then say 'oh, but it's not meant to have any implications for the current discussion, I'm not suggesting anything'. You are actually Saying Something Pretty Awful by throwing that out there and saying 'discuss': namely, you are suggesting that there is some kind of moral parity between death penalty for apostasy and mass ethnic cleansing that suggests we shouldn't care about either rather than, you know, caring about both.
-
You are not psychic, you do not know what I am thinking, and all of the inferences you have just made are wrong.
What I said is literally what I meant.
-
Sorry dude, I don't think you're making your case. When you drop a piece of information like that into a conversation - whether you want to or not - you are also dropping in a whole host of implied information and judgment. You can't switch that off with a disclaimer. Do you want to engage with the substance of what you posted, as I have? We could actually discuss it.
-
He is not saying they deserve it. He is saying similarly bad things happen elsewhere but with reversed roles. There is no call to (in)action. Though if you feel bringing this (tangential) point up could lead one in that direction the correct response should be something along the lines of "but that does not make this situation right, does it?".
-
Yes, as I did above.
-
He's not saying much of anything, which I suspect is Battuta's beef with the post. It was objectively speaking a pretty ****ty post, and I for one am glad he got called on it.
-
If the post didn't say much of anything, then there isn't much that can be ****ty about it, is there?
I think Battuta is being a little too hard on Aardwolf. Part of "being respectful" is to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about what someone meant. If a post isn't clear, the best thing to do is to ask for clarification or elaboration, not seize on one possible interpretation and start attacking it. We're all mature enough to give each other the benefit of the doubt.
-
If the post didn't say much of anything, then there isn't much that can be ****ty about it, is there?
I would argue that contentlessness is an indicator of ****tyness.
-
well a single ****post and the handling thereof has managed to derail an entire topic.
-
So uh... it's not really on a 'genocide' scale, but a lot of Islamic states have the death penalty for apostasy (i.e. converting away from Islam). So... idk, just throwing that out there.
What does apostasy have anything to do with the problem in c.a.r.? When muslims moved in they started **** with the christians, now the christians are starting **** with the muslims. The christians are the majority over there, and a lot of them are attacking and killing muslims for just being muslim.
-
omg the thread has gone full meta.
Never go full meta!
Regarding the subject, it is quite unfortunately a very easy phenomenon to understand, because we have been here for too much goddamned time listening and hearing and reading about exactly equal stories to this one for decades, and if we were capable of being older, centuries and millenia.
This is the same story we heard in the nineties in the very middle of Europe. It brought up a war and eventually the genocidal criminals were brought to justice, a tad too late for a lot of innocent muslims. All these stories are similar in this fashion: once the "disease" is detected and eventually discussed and eventually acted upon, it's already too late for too many people. Many times however, the cavalry never comes, and a whole genocidal movement will actually carry its fever to the bitter end. "Cleanse the land of the evil curse", use any words at their disposal (religious or not, whatever), us-vs-them (and all our troubles are because of them, obviously, so we better take care of them!), rile up the population, and at the end only blood is left.
Blood of innocent people. Will this never end?
-
I think Battuta is being a little too hard on Aardwolf. Part of "being respectful" is to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about what someone meant. If a post isn't clear, the best thing to do is to ask for clarification or elaboration
Exactly what happened, as the record shows.
-
omg the thread has gone full meta.
Never go full meta!
Regarding the subject, it is quite unfortunately a very easy phenomenon to understand, because we have been here for too much goddamned time listening and hearing and reading about exactly equal stories to this one for decades, and if we were capable of being older, centuries and millenia.
This is the same story we heard in the nineties in the very middle of Europe. It brought up a war and eventually the genocidal criminals were brought to justice, a tad too late for a lot of innocent muslims. All these stories are similar in this fashion: once the "disease" is detected and eventually discussed and eventually acted upon, it's already too late for too many people. Many times however, the cavalry never comes, and a whole genocidal movement will actually carry its fever to the bitter end. "Cleanse the land of the evil curse", use any words at their disposal (religious or not, whatever), us-vs-them (and all our troubles are because of them, obviously, so we better take care of them!), rile up the population, and at the end only blood is left.
Blood of innocent people. Will this never end?
Only if people would learn the principles of their own faith (Charity, conversion through persuasion, moral treatment of others) and stop using religion as an excuse to lash out at old enemies, find scapegoats, distract their people from the failings of their own government, et cetera. Most religions, taken seriously, don't consider conversion by force to be worth squat, but that doesn't stop people like these. The Apostles are probably turning in their graves over this.
-
Saying what's happening (and has happened since time immemorial) in Africa today is about religion is like saying the historical Irish situation is about religion, or what happened in the Balkans was about religion. Or for that matter, Syria, Iraq, etc.
It's a curious bit of irony that whenever someone says a conflict is due to religion, you can be nearly 100% certain that the conflict is actually about something else entirely. And so it goes in Africa too. People all over the world, and in Africa in particular, have made killing each other over reasons nearly incomprehensible to residents of many Western nations into a bit of a macabre art form. From Somalia, to Sierra Leone, to Rwanda, and many other nations, most people have very little idea of what actually happens in Africa.
Doesn't make what's happening in CAR any less reprehensible, though. But the point is, it isn't really about what god people worship.
-
Saying what's happening (and has happened since time immemorial) in Africa today is about religion is like saying the historical Irish situation is about religion, or what happened in the Balkans was about religion. Or for that matter, Syria, Iraq, etc.
It's a curious bit of irony that whenever someone says a conflict is due to religion, you can be nearly 100% certain that the conflict is actually about something else entirely. And so it goes in Africa too. People all over the world, and in Africa in particular, have made killing each other over reasons nearly incomprehensible to residents of many Western nations into a bit of a macabre art form. From Somalia, to Sierra Leone, to Rwanda, and many other nations, most people have very little idea of what actually happens in Africa.
Doesn't make what's happening in CAR any less reprehensible, though. But the point is, it isn't really about what god people worship.
That's more or less what I was getting at. Religion is less of a motivation for these crimes than a for-the-media "justification". If people like this were actually interested in the good of their religion, they wouldn't be making it look bad in front of the world.
-
Religion is less of a motivation for these crimes than a for-the-media "justification". If people like this were actually interested in the good of their religion, they wouldn't be making it look bad in front of the world.
Clearly they don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, and they don't expect to ever face any consequences for their actions. But they're using a religious war as a recruiting tool, and religious propaganda doesn't bring in recruits unless the recruits subscribe to that religion.
-
Religion is less of a motivation for these crimes than a for-the-media "justification". If people like this were actually interested in the good of their religion, they wouldn't be making it look bad in front of the world.
Clearly they don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, and they don't expect to ever face any consequences for their actions. But they're using a religious war as a recruiting tool, and religious propaganda doesn't bring in recruits unless the recruits subscribe to that religion.
Or their version of what they think it is
Study Irish history sometime. It's quite profound that in a conflict that is largely and popularly characterized as Catholics vs Protestants, the driving motivation has squat to do with the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's power politics from beginning to end. Religion is just a handy filter (commonly substituted for by football uniforms/colours, etc).
The same is largely true in CAR. It's not a difference of beliefs, it's a difference in politics that marginally correlate to beliefs. Ergo, it's easier to say "Muslims" than the lengthy paragraph of what really has the "Christian" majority out murdering people in the streets.
-
Oh definitely!
Although perhaps I wouldn't go as far as to say that power and politics have "nothing" to do with Religion in the first place! This is that minor detail that really separates us here, MP. "Protetantism" and "Catholicism" aren't these amazing religious theologies that came only about by a priori thinking. They were formed precisely with political powers in mind, they were shared and forced upon for political and power motives, and so on and so on. Hell, the UK version of christianity was born out of political necessity entirely!
Yes, yes, you will say "There you go again Luis, you are trying to drive me mad!! That was what I was saying all along!", bear with me. What I am really saying here is that Religion, the big R, deals and swims precisely in these power politics moves and necessities. Religion *has* a lot to do with them too.
-
The same is largely true in CAR. It's not a difference of beliefs, it's a difference in politics that marginally correlate to beliefs. Ergo, it's easier to say "Muslims" than the lengthy paragraph of what really has the "Christian" majority out murdering people in the streets.
So someone at the top has constructed an "us-vs-them" scenario, and the people at the bottom are buying into it. So it's a problem of authoritarianism, yes? Of people letting someone tell them what to think, because they trust (too much) in their authority.
I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that religious faith breeds authoritarian faith in religious figures.
-
“A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened.”
George Orwell.
-
Upon further consideration (not related to Luis Dias' post), I retract my hypothesis about religion and authoritarianism. A world of atheists would not be immune to the authoritarianism trap; it would take an ideology of anti-authoritarianism to do that (and keep it that way).
-
Orwell's oeuvre is the authority on authoritarianism. Conversation oeuvre.
e: ++pungood
-
Upon further consideration (not related to Luis Dias' post), I retract my hypothesis about religion and authoritarianism. A world of atheists would not be immune to the authoritarianism trap; it would take an ideology of anti-authoritarianism to do that (and keep it that way).
I don't think you were wrong necessarily just because atheists would be capable of making the same mistake, there is a difference between saying A leads to B, and saying A is the only way to B.
A->B is an argument that would have to be investigated on it's own.
Though I'm not going to make that argument myself because I can easily imagine a religion that would be anti-authoritarian.
Though I suppose asking could it survive long term is a different question.
-
Though I'm not going to make that argument myself because I can easily imagine a religion that would be anti-authoritarian.
Isn't that Discordianism?
-
What if you worshiped Loki?
Satanism would be another one off the top of my head (you are your own god).
but yeah, Discordianism is a good example, assuming anyone took it seriously.
-
Satanism as in LaVey's Church of Satan, or one of the other Satanisms?
-
LaVey