Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

Laura said:
Timótheos said:
When one looks back ay the history of Christianity, with the burning of heretics and the tortures of the Inquisition, it is a history of horrible intolerance and abuses. Over time things have changed somewhat for better, and religions do serve a necessary purpose in society. If Islam has any hope of remaining relevant and becoming more accepted in the west, the 99% percent of the moderates around the world, who just want to live normal lives, need to stand up and challenge the regressive policies of their religion and the fundamentalist leaders who promote them. But alas, it is probably a little too late for any of that now.

Well said, and true enough: the threat exerted on Islam from the outside will only serve to strengthen their belief that they are right. And, based on the sociological studies I've read, this is pretty well known and MUST BE DELIBERATE.

I think it's the same with Judaism/Israel. The more the world criticizes them, the deeper they dig in their heels and the more it justifies a paranoid victim mentality where everyone's out to get you and we have to stick together. And the standard "conservative" reaction to external threat is to fall back on existing traditions/"values"/etc. So it's pretty much a law of nature, but one that can be easily provoked. Heck, it's the same with the States. The more the world criticizes them, the more they think they're right.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if the initial impetus is deliberate or not; you're still left with the same situation. Once it gets started, it takes off and there's not much you can do to stop it. Any mass social phenomenon naturally takes on a life of its own.

I think the big question is what if anything can be done at this point in time. Acknowledging foreign involvement w/ jihadism can help. Like Lobaczewski said, if a pathocratic movement is seen as coming from abroad, it is less likely to take hold in a country. But just acknowledging foreign involvement isn't enough. Many won't believe it, and those who do are still left with the problem it has created and the fact that the ideology is self-sustaining. There's a reality on the ground that isn't moved much by geopolitical explanations.

In the case of the Muslim world, that means up to 16,000,000 jihadis (assuming 1% of 1.6 billion), and something like 120 million Muslims who hold favourable opinions of al-Qaeda or some of their goals but who don't participate. (That figure dropped from 135.9 to 122.4 million from 2013 to 2014 according to Pew. Even if those figures were off by a factor of 10, that's still 1.6 million jihadists and 12 million passive supporters.) And then there are those who are unwittingly involved through "non-violent" revolutionary orgs like MB or Hizb ut-Tahrir, and who don't really know what they've got themselves involved with.

A military solution can only go so far. (And it can go TOO far, of course.) Russia largely won the battle in the Caucasus, but there are still plenty of Russian jihadists, in Syria AND in Russia. And if we ever get a full-blown 'clash of civilizations', that would result in even more massive bloodshed.

It's untested, but I think the best solution is probably the long shot of getting people to understand all the various aspects of ponerology: psychology, psychopathology, ponerogenic processes, etc. And the same would need to be done in every country involved. Syrian, Libyan, and Iraqi imams would probably be the best mouthpieces for that sort of information since their countries have been most affected. Saudi Arabia needs it, but Saudi Arabia is pretty much a full-blown pathocracy so getting the information there would be more difficult.

If authoritative Muslims could understand and explain how their religion is hijacked by pathologicals in their midst, that would provide even more immunization than seeing it as a foreign imposition. It would probably even have the effect of refining the Islamic worldview and countering the aspects that make it vulnerable to ponerogenesis. And, of course, same goes for all other religions and cultures.
 
I encourage people to learn some history of the 'caliphates'. There have been many 'Islams' between the 8th century and now. Regimes come and go, and sometimes in a very short space of time, e.g. in just two decades, Russia has undergone rather profound transformation. Islamic Spain - just to throw in a polar opposite to modern Saudi Arabia, the worst of the current bunch - gave the world the troubadour traditions, courtly love, and universities. 'Islam' made al-Andalus, and 'Islam' made the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - which is 'the true Islam'?

Making the case that Islam is and always was 'the worst of the bunch', 'more flawed than the others', and other comparative conclusions, is, in the end, a modern narrative-building exercise in supporting the status quo (Western hegemony). Yes, we can make statements about the relative state of Islam as it is today, but that's about it. People come at this from the starting assumption that Islam is only just now 'mixing with Western civilization', i.e. via the refugee crisis, and they then point to its results and say, 'See? Incompatible!'

But this glosses over a whole lot of really important stuff. When exploring how and why 'Islam in the Middle East is so bad today', one would ideally come to realize that what is actually being investigated is the dynamic of how that Islam came about when mixing with Western civilization over the course of many centuries, especially the last couple of centuries.

It's all well and good for Paul Joseph Watson and Jordan Peterson to proclaim that "Islam is incompatible with Western values", but what they're not doing on the way to making such statements is at all times having a mirror alongside their swords during their 'investigations to the heart of the matter', a mirror that would show them how 'Western values' co-created the very 'Islam' they judge. So, between the last couple of centuries of outright colonialism, 'shock-and-awe', and proxy warfare, is it the case that 'Islam is still stuck in the 8th century'... or that 'we bombed them back to there, and keep them there'?

It's proper to be wary of, criticize and even detest this 'Islam', but if we lose sight of the fact that it was 'made in our image', then we lose those 'Western values' that we like and aspire to (whatever exactly those are; some blend of 'christian', 'rational', and 'liberal', I imagine).
 
Niall said:
I encourage people to learn some history of the 'caliphates'. There have been many 'Islams' between the 8th century and now. Regimes come and go, and sometimes in a very short space of time, e.g. in just two decades, Russia has undergone rather profound transformation. Islamic Spain - just to throw in a polar opposite to modern Saudi Arabia, the worst of the current bunch - gave the world the troubadour traditions, courtly love, and universities. 'Islam' made al-Andalus, and 'Islam' made the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - which is 'the true Islam'?

This is a fascinating topic for sure. One of the prevalent underlying threads of Islamic culture and thought is the competition between two Islamic legal concepts: taqlid, and ijtihad. Taqlid literally means imitation and strict adherence to what is laid down in legal precedent. Ijtihad means essentially, "independent thought". Since Islam conquered much of the middle east and Africa, it needed to flesh out a legal code under which it could operate. Obviously many legal situations would come up for which there wasn't a black-and-white answer in the Quran or Sunnah (which is the collection of oral accounts of the life of the prophet and his companions). So a strick, imitative adherence (taqlid) wasn't always possible. So ijtihad, or independent thought and interpretation of scripture, became important for filling in the holes. Overtime ijtihad's use was restricted more in Sunni cultures, since enough of a body of legal jurisprudence was built up. Ijtihad retained its state in Shia cultures, and to this day Iranian political theory still values it (Saudi Arabia does not). Sunni interest in ijtihad later revived again by the 18th century, and continues to be relied on by Islamic reformers. The wikipedia article on ijtihad, as well as liberal and progressive Muslim movements, I think provide some good background.

A part of me can't help but compare ijtihad to the flowering of Protestantism in Europe, in terms of what it could potentially have lead to. Was the printing press the difference that made a difference?

It's proper to be wary of, criticize and even detest this 'Islam', but if we lose sight of the fact that it was 'made in our image', then we lose those 'Western values' that we like and aspire to (whatever exactly those are; some blend of 'christian', 'rational', and 'liberal', I imagine).

I think another overlooked aspect of western values (or at least how we culturally view the world) could also be Millenialism, and all its ideological descendants (namely the idea of social progress) dedicated to "immanentizing the eschaton," or "end of days". The basic idea behind this was the notion that a thousand years (give or take) of peace on earth and paradise would precede the last judgement. This belief, combined with growing dissatisfaction with Catholicism, led to "Reformed Christians" taking it upon themselves to establish this just society on earth themselves to speed up the return of Jesus. This was pronounced strongly in the Calvinist Netherlands, which became republican (by 16th century standards) and sheltered many heretics. The ideas also strongly influenced Hegel and later Marx, in their own historical theories. Obviously the Puritans in England were all to eager to construct new societies of whole cloth in America as well, in their social engineering experiments. Like a perverse sort of "open-source Platonism". It's easy to see the parallels in the western narratives about democracy and progressivism taking over the world and making everyone as rich and wonderful as us. Then again, I'm not the most well-read person on the subject.

I'm not as sure there's a similar movement or thread in Islam, outside of the historical call for it to keep up with the technological and social organization of Christendom. I do know the salafist movement (one of Wahhabism's roots) came about roughly during a time when there were a lot of upheavals around the globe... history of Islam is an enormous topic for sure.

I encourage people to learn some history of the 'caliphates'

Any books you could recommend? :)
 
mkrnhr said:
It is somehow astonishing to see JP doing such an amateurish appeal to emotion instead of tackling the issue through reason. It might be that the M103 contains disputable aspects but he doesn't explain what. Addressing "all Muslims", in the manner of "each and every Muslim" as if it were a single and homogeneous entity is at the least an intellectual laziness.

To me, the video appeared less of an emotional message but a very calculated and analytical one, coming from his academically abstract thinking. We know from the gender issue that JP is all about free speech. He basically asks: After M103, will I still be able to freely speak, or will even the use of a completely neutral cartoon (not smiling, not frowning, no color) get me into big trouble? It does point out the irrationality of some coming legislations.

My guess is that most people aren't intellectually able to follow his more complex and verbose talks. On the other side, such short implicit messages could be dangerous too, because some viewers may interpret entirely different things into them. A little bit of explanation would have gone a long way.

But it could be that he was emotionally motivated to choose this different format.
 
luc said:
Scottie said:
It's funny, because everyone in many countries is saying, "Yeah, we need a woman for president!" as if that will solve everything, but then they seem to choose the worst ones - as with men.

Indeed, and as Peterson points out, we know quite well how 'male totalitarianism' looks like, but we have no clue how 'female totalitarianism' plays out. Well, we're being educated right now I guess...


I stumbled across this interview with Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila by chance, really interesting. Turns out they both battled depression and various autoimmune issues with... tada: pretty much the diet recommended here on the forum!



Quite an impressive family apparently, and I guess it makes sense - the kind of deep research of the human condition Peterson devoted his life to probably wouldn't be possible without some kind of strong and steadfast support (and a great deal of suffering), osit.

Was very moved by Mikhaila's struggles and how she found a way to battle her long standing depression and autoimmune deficiencies through diet. Jordan has struggled with the notion, yet he understands that people generally really know not a lot about anything (his message) as he starts to look at issues with gut bacteria et al. Mikhaila has advanced herself beyond her dad with he studies on diet; she should write a book on this as it was very first hands and personal and could be very helpful to many. Congratulations Mikhalila!

[quote author= Timótheos]And if the M013 motion gets passed through Canadian parliament, there may soon exist the possibility that just by saying something like that in public could result in real legal consequences.[/quote]

Just wanted to say what hit me on the M013 motion was the hypocrisy of a Canadian parliament hiding their very bloody hands behind an anti-Islamic bill, when they have actively helped slaughtered Muslims from from the coast of Africa's Libya to the non-Saudi Muslims countries as we have witnessed. They have made refugees out of so many people and then pretend to cater to the peoples programmed emotionless on the left (who gave little thought about Muslims when it mattered) and the divisiveness that can be expected on the right. I don't know what the plans were/are for the globalist left, they seemed to have been playing everyone with the help of the neocons - Not sure where this will all go, yet something says this is not going to end well.

The other thing that comes to mind is the Muslim global demographics, often associated with Middle East countries primarily (Western focus of war) when in fact a massive amount of Muslims (whether they practice or not) come from Central, South, Southeast-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Indonesia, with Middle East-North Africa (includes the Middle East) making up the balance - and all points NSEW in the globe or somewhere around two billion people.

Joe mentioned the British role in polluting the historical Middle East, and this has spread - setting up divisive global religious packs without a rudder in sight to properly steer them. So the idea that the Judaeo-Christian foundations being tinkered with from the original truths, and the latter coming of Islam for this triad of monotheism that pits all three against each other, has the ingredients of bad tempest that has little hope of clearing.

Lastly, over the years has been the rise of renewed open or more concealed tensions (it's subtle unless you listen) by the Buddhists against the Muslims. Their history has been riddled with conflict; not always, yet it rises again as can be seen in many countries:

Holy Wars in Buddhism and Islam

https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/buddhism-islam/holy-wars-in-buddhism-and-islam

Often, when people think of the Muslim concept of jihad or holy war, they associate with it the negative connotation of a self-righteous campaign of vengeful destruction in the name of God to convert others by force. They may acknowledge that Christianity had an equivalent with the Crusades, but do not usually view Buddhism as having anything similar. After all, they say, Buddhism is a religion of peace and does not have the technical term holy war. A careful examination of the Buddhist texts, however, particularly The Kalachakra Tantra literature, reveals both external and internal levels of battle that could easily be called "holy wars." An unbiased study of Islam reveals the same. In both religions, leaders may exploit the external dimensions of holy war for political, economic, or personal gain, by using it to rouse their troops to battle. Historical examples regarding Islam are well known; but one must not be rosy-eyed about Buddhism and think that it has been immune to this phenomenon. Nevertheless, in both religions, the main emphasis is on the internal spiritual battle against one’s own ignorance and destructive ways.

Appreciate what people have said here and still have much to sort out and learn...
 
voyageur said:
Joe mentioned the British role in polluting the historical Middle East, and this has spread - setting up divisive global religious packs without a rudder in sight to properly steer them. So the idea that the Judaeo-Christian foundations being tinkered with from the original truths, and the latter coming of Islam for this triad of monotheism that pits all three against each other, has the ingredients of bad tempest that has little hope of clearing.

As others have said, when I hear someone say "Islam is not compatible with Western culture/values" I have to ask, as Niall did, "which Islam?" and "which Western values?" Is it the Islam of "ISIS"? The same I "ISIS" that was fully supported in recent years (and still is) by Western powers to take over Syria? If so, is it compatible with Western values to destroy a multi-cultural/multi-religious society like Syria and set up a phony "radical Islam" group like ISIS in power? If so, how can anyone say "Islam is not compatible with Western values"? Apparently supporting radical Islam is fully compatible with Western government values of using a manufactured "radical Islam" to dominate resource-rich areas of the globe. Ok, maybe Western government's geopolitical agendas are not representative of the values of ordinary people in Western nations, but how much influence do Western governments have in setting values in Western nations?

Like I said previously, there's a sadistic mind game going on here, and no one (here on the forum at least) should fall for black and white simplistic thinking that attempts to pull people into one 'camp' or the other and make reactionaries out of them. The problem is that it IS a very complicated situation to sort out, and the more you delve into it, the more you realize that a workable solution is unlikely, especially when you take mechanical human nature into consideration. The appeal of black and white/simplistic conceptions of the problem therefore, is that they DO present a simple solution to the simplistic conception of the problem, and it's a solution often ends in "wipe them all out" or words to that effect.

So I think its likely that many people 'out there' will fall for such bait, and it won't end well, but for my part, at the very least I'm not going to lend my voice to such destructive impulses.
 
Joe said:
As others have said, when I hear someone say "Islam is not compatible with Western culture/values" I have to ask, as Niall did, "which Islam?" and "which Western values?" Is it the Islam of "ISIS"? The same I "ISIS" that was fully supported in recent years (and still is) by Western powers to take over Syria? If so, is it compatible with Western values to destroy a multi-cultural/multi-religious society like Syria and set up a phony "radical Islam" group like ISIS in power? If so, how can anyone say "Islam is not compatible with Western values"? Apparently supporting radical Islam is fully compatible with Western government values of using a manufactured "radical Islam" to dominate resource-rich areas of the globe. Ok, maybe Western government's geopolitical agendas are not representative of the values of ordinary people in Western nations, but how much influence do Western governments have in setting values in Western nations?

Like I said previously, there's a sadistic mind game going on here, and no one (here on the forum at least) should fall for black and white simplistic thinking that attempts to pull people into one 'camp' or the other or make reactionaries out of them. It's like that many people 'out there' will fall for such bait, and it won't end well, but for my part, at the very least I'm not going to lend my voice to such destructive impulses.

Thanks Joe and everyone for this discussion. Indeed, I think we kinds of run in circles here if we don't clearly define what we are talking about. This goes for Western values as well: which 'Western values' do we mean? The good aspects of Western thought and civilization? Enlightenment? The good aspects of Christianity? Or do we mean the ponerized society/government that twisted everything good about the West and turned it into a murderous machine? Are we talking about the hidden machinations of our power structure, or are we talking about the overt value system that it promotes?

Part of the problem seems to be what Lobachewskii called the two different kind of languages: that of the deviant, pathologicals and psychopaths and that of normal people. If we don't take that into account, we will always understand things differently and cannot come to a conclusion: we will either interpret Islam as some kind of good religion with some problems (normal, yet naive thinking), or bash it as the epitome of evil (ponerized thinking). We will just gloss over everything that's wrong with Islam, trying to rescue its brutal elements by interpreting them away (normal perspective ignoring ponerology), or we will see the subleties and put them in the proper context (informed thinking, like Laura did in her post).

Same for 'Western civilization'. Very tricky all that.
 
Joe said:
voyageur said:
Joe mentioned the British role in polluting the historical Middle East, and this has spread - setting up divisive global religious packs without a rudder in sight to properly steer them. So the idea that the Judaeo-Christian foundations being tinkered with from the original truths, and the latter coming of Islam for this triad of monotheism that pits all three against each other, has the ingredients of bad tempest that has little hope of clearing.

As others have said, when I hear someone say "Islam is not compatible with Western culture/values" I have to ask, as Niall did, "which Islam?" and "which Western values?" Is it the Islam of "ISIS"? The same I "ISIS" that was fully supported in recent years (and still is) by Western powers to take over Syria? If so, is it compatible with Western values to destroy a multi-cultural/multi-religious society like Syria and set up a phony "radical Islam" group like ISIS in power? If so, how can anyone say "Islam is not compatible with Western values"? Apparently supporting radical Islam is fully compatible with Western government values of using a manufactured "radical Islam" to dominate resource-rich areas of the globe. Ok, maybe Western government's geopolitical agendas are not representative of Western values, but how much influence do Western governments have in setting Western values?

If not expressed, there is no argument with what you are saying; which Islam or which other religion for that mater. The tendency to paint with the same brush a religion is common when the contrasts within them are avoided. As for values, a governments position (at least where I live) likes to harp on what those values are; without ever identifying them really, so when you ask someone what values do you see they will often scratch their heads. The values of the government are mostly apparent by their actions.
 
Laura said:
Actually, in former times, blasphemy in Judaism was punished by stoning. They just got with the modern program and realized they weren't big enough to impose that on everyone else.

Blasphemy against God/Christ was also severely punished right up until rather recent times. Many professors and persons of influence were punished by losing their jobs/positions for questioning the truth of Christianity. In fact, most recently, biblical scholar, Gerd Ludemann was subjected to "the treatment": [...]

Of course, that's nothing like being beheaded or inflicting punishments on "infidels" for criticizing your faith as Islam seeks to do. Back when Judaism (first) and Christianity (later) went after unbelievers, it was usually just going to war with them - i.e. crusades or the Protestants vs. the Catholics. And don't forget the endless Jewish pogroms beginning in the early centuries AD.

Islam operates as though time has stopped; it is still in the 8th or 9th century.

Indeed, the histories of both Christianity and Judaism are rife with examples of extreme and barbarous punishments for apostates and heretics, and as evidenced above, still exert less violent forms of coercion and control to protect its dogma from inconvenient truth tellers like Gerd Ludemann. That some of the more radical Islamic countries still condone such medieval practices as stonings and honour killings today is disturbing, but perhaps with a 600 year head start, Christianity had time to reform these practices and Islam still needs some time to catch up?

What I hadn't considered, as you pointed out below, is that along with this reformation, also came the loss of the proper understanding of 'higher realities', throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. That's an important distinction to make and and thanks for that!

Laura said:
Actually, that is not entirely the case. The Christianity that Paul created is actually rather similar to things the Cs have said about our cosmic reality - and Jordan, in his assessment of some of the ideas - the existence of the antipodes of goodness, for example - touches on some of these important points. But, all of the theological issues are something I'm still working on writing about.

That's true as well. The type of Christian theology I was referring to is the one unquestioningly believed by the majority of average Christians. Like viewing the bible as an accurate historical document for example, or taking mythical stories of supposed miracles, whether be of virgin births, walking on water or resurrection from the dead, at face value. Even the most moderate Christian who would be rightly skeptical of such stories from a rational scientific perspective, would still probably have a hard time accepting that their Lord and saviour - Jesus Christ - was not a genuine historical figure but a myth based on an amalgamation of 2 or 3 different people, including Julius Caesar!

So, unfortunately, outside of the the members of this forum, people who have read your books, and a handful of biblical scholars, I would venture that most Christians don't really have a clue as to what real Christianity is or could be as Paul envisioned. And this not to disparage their overall value system, which I think is quite and sound reasonable, albeit somewhat misinformed.

Laura said:
What are the "values" of "Western Civilization"? Most of our "values" are Judaeo/Christian and have led us to the present truly awful global situation.

It's a good question and you are correct as well! I need to rethink what I was trying to articulate and perhaps use better language to describe it. What I was attempting to express is the idea that western civilization, and the "ideal" values upon which it was founded, for all its faults and being far from perfect, seems to me to provide the best foundation from which to build a decent, well-functioning society. And this is only in comparison to certain encoded and enforced Islamic values that are practiced today in some of the more radical Islamic countries.

It tends to be problematic to speak in sweeping, broad generalized terms, for there are always exceptions to the rule. However, when you factor in things like freedom of association and expression, access to education, tolerance, safety, religious affiliation, life expectancy, technology and wealth, one would be hard pressed to find a better example of such overall positive living conditions in recent history outside of western culture. This one probably one of the reasons that so many people from other countries (even before the refugee crisis) have looked to west as a favourable place to immigrate to.

So, it's not that the western values are perfect or can't be modified for the better, nor that other cultures and religions have some values that may also have a positive effect in themselves, but that, in this day and age, all things considered, it is still arguably the best system we got, and can be built upon and improved rather than dismantled and destroyed.

Discarding the ideals values that have shaped western civilization and opening them up to the more regressive values of radical Islam, under the guise of tolerance and multiculturalism, seems like a step backwards to me. And this brings us back to the original impetus for my post; motion M103, recently put before Canadian parliament, that attempts to criminalize legitimate criticism of one specific religion. Not a good sign.

Laura said:
Well said, and true enough: the threat exerted on Islam from the outside will only serve to strengthen their belief that they are right. And, based on the sociological studies I've read, this is pretty well known and MUST BE DELIBERATE.

Yes, it does seem deliberate, but on a different level somehow in Canada. It seems to me that motion M103 became an issue in the news because of a genuinely heartfelt response to the recent killings at the the Quebec mosque. But as Bjorn pointed out, this type of legislation will likely serve to produce an increase in animosity towards Muslims, rather than the protective effect that was intended. Is the Canadian government really that astute to apply this kind of double reverse psychology in order to further inflame this clash of civilizations? Or are they just RE-acting unconsciously in some way as useful dupes in order to create a reality the real controllers desire, but they themselves are unaware of?

I hope my explanation has helped to make some of my previous statements more clear.
 
Joe said:
Note that blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are centered on Middle Eastern countries, with the most severe punishments in Saudi Arabia, a ridiculous farce of a 'nation' that practices a ridiculous and farcical interpretation of Islam (there are many interpretation of the Koran depending on the country). Note also that most Middle Eastern countries are, to one extent or another, the creation of Western powers and have been interfered with since their creation less than 100 years ago. Then note that these same Western powers have posited the 'clash of civilizations' i.e. "radical Islam" Vs the West, which necessitates Western military and corporate intervention in these resource rich areas.

Noted. And all of the above is true and without dispute. My point was, that even with the acknowledgement of the above and the west's culpability for the creation of said situation, the reality exists that barbaric punishments ARE presently being practiced against real people in these radical Islamic countries and enacting laws that criminalize legitimate criticism of these practices under the guise of preventing Islamophobia or allowing such practices one's own country under the guise of tolerance and multiculturalism, should be strongly resisted, IMO.

It is interesting that CBC reported today that a conservative MP tried to amend the tabled motion M103 - replacing the word "Islamophobia" with "all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities." - but was immediately rejected by the Liberal dominated house.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m103-islamophobia-joly-khalid-1.3983911

There is also this story about MP Iqra Khalid who first tabled motion M103, that highlights her questionable past associations with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups... http://tsecnetwork.ca/2017/01/27/member-of-parliament-iqra-khalid-is-an-islamist-hypocrite/

Joe said:
Do you really think that the fact that Christianity in western nations can be lampooned and ridiculed to high heaven with not only complete impunity but often with enthusiastic encouragement from the establishment and media, is a good thing for Western society at large? The campaign to destroy Christian values in the West and promote 'multi-culturalism' has been pursued by "leftists" for many years. The same people who lampoon Christianity in the West want you and I to embrace gender fluidity. Maybe that could eventually be turned into a religion to replace Christianity?

I think all religions, ideas, opinions and belief systems CAN and SHOULD be analyzed, discussed, criticized and remain open to ridicule and lampooning, and that it would be a good thing for ALL societies at large. It is akin, in a way, to the necessary and sometimes precarious role of the jester in the king's court. He alone was allowed to make fun of the scared and powerful ruler, if only to keep him humble and remind everyone that we are all just human beings after all. I'm simply advocating for the freedom to lampoon and/or criticize all religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity, without fear of being punished for singling out one in particular, which is what this new motion seems to be attempting to do.

JP posted this on FB yesterday - "It is imperative that we retain the right (no, the obligation) to criticize everything, religion included. I say this as a religious man."

Joe said:
"All hail the great gender queer god?!" :scared:

Now that is funny, and in a strange way, looking at it from a larger perspective, kind of true as well! :D
 
Dugin on the difference between 'artificially-created modern Islam' and 'traditional Islam':


He also argues, briefly at the beginning, that: "the West is not Christian. Christianity in the West today is one of a series of possible options available to people living in a liberal, secular system."

This makes it a modern simulacrum of 'traditional Christianity' (which he no doubt considers Russian Orthodoxy to be), just like its 'opponent', "protestant, modernist Islam."

Dugin's shtick, by the way, is that he "rejects modernity". He doesn't mean by this technological and scientific advances since the industrial revolution; rather the secular, liberal ideology that emerged from the anti-monarchy 'glorious revolution' in England and the anti-church revolution in France. It's a tricky distinction to navigate because both 'the wonders of modern civilization' and the 'ideological environment' they came with are so intertwined...

This means, for him, that Communism/Socialism/Fascism are all products of the same secular system the West has been in for centuries. He rejects them all, along with liberalism (which he says is the worst, because it lasted longest and gave birth to the others)! I think that's what we're seeing in the world today; this shrugging off of all such ideology. Strong, nationalist leaders making pragmatic rather than ideologically-informed decisions - what liberal doctrine teaches are 'autocratic dictators' - are emerging from China to the US.
 
Regarding Islam, JP tweeted this survey among Muslims worldwide the other day: _http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

If the research is sound, it may shed some light on the status quo of Muslim thought and values. There's an argument to be made that Muslims are indeed quite conservative and supportive of sharia law. Such surveys don't reveal of course WHY Muslims are expressing these values, i.e. whether it's because of their religion or other factors such as their country's culture, tradition, socio-economic factors etc. But still, there seem to be some strong beliefs common among all Muslims that were interviewed, regardless of their country - not all of them negative IMO. Notice that most Muslims seem to embrace the theory of evolution, except Muslims in the US...

Here's the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A new Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the globe finds that most adherents of
the world’s second-largest religion are deeply committed to their faith and want its teachings
to shape not only their personal lives but also their societies and politics.
In all but a handful of
the 39 countries surveyed, a majority of Muslims say that Islam is the one true faith leading to
eternal life in heaven and that belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. Many also think
that their religious leaders should have at least some influence over political matters. And
many express a desire for sharia – traditional Islamic law – to be recognized as the official law
of their country.


The percentage of Muslims who say they want sharia to be “the official law of the land” varies
widely around the world, from fewer than one-in-ten in Azerbaijan (8%) to near unanimity in
Afghanistan (99%). But solid majorities in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle
East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia favor the
establishment of sharia, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt
and 89% in the Palestinian territories.

At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing
for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for
example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their
religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of
Pakistani Muslims favor enshrining sharia as official law. These seemingly divergent views are
possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan – as in many other countries –
think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Moreover, Muslims around the globe have
differing understandings of what sharia means in practice.

The survey – which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages
with Muslims across Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa – shows that Muslims tend to be
most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle family or property
disputes.
In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less support for severe
punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from
Islam to another faith. And even in the domestic sphere, Muslims differ widely on such
questions as whether polygamy, divorce and family planning are morally acceptable and
whether daughters should be able to receive the same inheritance as sons.

In most countries surveyed, majorities of Muslim women as well as men agree that a wife is
always obliged to obey her husband. Indeed, more than nine-in-ten Muslims in Iraq (92%),
Morocco (92%), Tunisia (93%), Indonesia (93%), Afghanistan (94%) and Malaysia (96%)
express this view.
At the same time, majorities in many countries surveyed say a woman
should be able to decide for herself whether to wear a veil.

Overall, the survey finds that most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously
devout and living in a modern society. Nor do they see any conflict between religion and
science. Many favor democracy over authoritarian rule, believe that humans and other living
things have evolved over time
and say they personally enjoy Western movies, music and
television – even though most think Western popular culture undermines public morality.

The new survey also allows some comparisons with prior Pew Research Center surveys of
Muslims in the United States. Like most Muslims worldwide, U.S. Muslims generally express
strong commitment to their faith and tend not to see an inherent conflict between being
devout and living in a modern society. But American Muslims are much more likely than
Muslims in other countries to have close friends who do not share their faith, and they are
much more open to the idea that many religions – not only Islam – can lead to eternal life in
heaven. At the same time, U.S. Muslims are less inclined than their co-religionists around the
globe to believe in evolution; on this subject, they are closer to U.S. Christians.

Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians
in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say
violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend
Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against
civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at
least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in
Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.


These are among the key findings of a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum
on Religion & Public Life. The survey was conducted in two waves. Fifteen sub-Saharan
African countries with substantial Muslim populations were surveyed in 2008-2009, and some
of those results previously were analyzed in the Pew Research Center’s 2010 report “Tolerance
and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa.” An additional 24 countries in
Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa were surveyed in 2011-2012; results regarding
religious beliefs and practices were first published in the Pew Research Center’s 2012 report
“The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity.” The current report focuses on Muslims’ social
and political attitudes, and it incorporates findings from both waves of the survey.


Other key findings include:

• At least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they are concerned about
religious extremist groups in their country, including two-thirds or more of Muslims in
Egypt (67%), Tunisia (67%), Iraq (68%), Guinea Bissau (72%) and Indonesia (78%). On
balance, more are worried about Islamic extremists than about Christian extremists
.

Muslims around the world overwhelmingly view certain behaviors – including
prostitution, homosexuality, suicide, abortion, euthanasia and consumption of alcohol –
as immoral.
But attitudes toward polygamy, divorce and birth control are more varied.
For example, polygamy is seen as morally acceptable by just 4% of Muslims in BosniaHerzegovina
and Azerbaijan; about half of Muslims in the Palestinian territories (48%)
and Malaysia (49%); and the vast majority of Muslims in several countries in subSaharan
Africa, such as Senegal (86%) and Niger (87%).

• In most countries where a question about so-called “honor” killings was asked,
majorities of Muslims say such killings are never justified
. Only in two countries –
Afghanistan and Iraq – do majorities condone extra-judicial executions of women who
allegedly have shamed their families by engaging in premarital sex or adultery.

• Relatively few Muslims say that tensions between more religiously observant and less
observant Muslims are a very big problem in their country. In most countries where the
question was asked, Muslims also see little tension between members of Islam’s two
major sects, Sunnis and Shias
– though a third or more of Muslims in Pakistan (34%)
and Lebanon (38%) consider Sunni-Shia conflict to be a very big problem.

• Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa are more likely than Muslims surveyed in other regions
to say they attend interfaith meetings and are knowledgeable about other faiths. But
substantial percentages of Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa also perceive hostility
between Muslims and Christians. In Guinea-Bissau, for example, 41% of Muslims say
“most” or “many” Christians are hostile toward Muslims, and 49% say “most” or “many”
Muslims are hostile toward Christians.

• In half of the countries where the question was asked, majorities of Muslims want
religious leaders to have at least “some influence” in political matters, and sizable
minorities in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa think religious leaders should have
a lot of political influence. For example, 37% of Muslims in Jordan, 41% in Malaysia and
53% in Afghanistan say religious leaders should play a “large” role in politics.

• Support for making sharia the official law of the land tends to be higher in countries like
Pakistan (84%) and Morocco (83%) where the constitution or basic laws favor Islam
over other religions.

• In many countries, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to support
making sharia official law than are Muslims who pray less frequently. In Russia,
Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Tunisia, for example, Muslims who pray several
times a day are at least 25 percentage points more supportive of enshrining sharia than
are less observant Muslims.
Generally, however, there is little difference in support for
sharia by age, gender or education.
 
Data said:
mkrnhr said:
It is somehow astonishing to see JP doing such an amateurish appeal to emotion instead of tackling the issue through reason. It might be that the M103 contains disputable aspects but he doesn't explain what. Addressing "all Muslims", in the manner of "each and every Muslim" as if it were a single and homogeneous entity is at the least an intellectual laziness.

To me, the video appeared less of an emotional message but a very calculated and analytical one, coming from his academically abstract thinking. We know from the gender issue that JP is all about free speech. He basically asks: After M103, will I still be able to freely speak, or will even the use of a completely neutral cartoon (not smiling, not frowning, no color) get me into big trouble? It does point out the irrationality of some coming legislations.

My guess is that most people aren't intellectually able to follow his more complex and verbose talks. On the other side, such short implicit messages could be dangerous too, because some viewers may interpret entirely different things into them. A little bit of explanation would have gone a long way.

But it could be that he was emotionally motivated to choose this different format.

That is also how I interpreted his video there. It basically seems to be a pretty abstract, calculated and measured move/experiment. I think he did it deliberately in that way, to maybe get himself even more into the fire and spread his overall message in return. But yes it can backfire, and I think he knows it.

The video is designed in a very demanding way intellectually. It is hard to follow and understand for pretty much most of the people. It is hard for me as well. I'm sure he thought quite a while on what and how he can present it there. Everything he says there was carefully written and evaluated before he created it. I'm sure he can defend all and everything he published in this video against premature judgments.

The question is though: Who can really understand it, besides people who are really deeply into that stuff? Not many I would say, even if he would explain it in simple terms.

He wants people to look at the overall picture (which isn't really islam in that video), or so it seems to me.
 
Data said:
To me, the video appeared less of an emotional message but a very calculated and analytical one, coming from his academically abstract thinking. We know from the gender issue that JP is all about free speech. He basically asks: After M103, will I still be able to freely speak, or will even the use of a completely neutral cartoon (not smiling, not frowning, no color) get me into big trouble? It does point out the irrationality of some coming legislations.

The video has an analytical message at its core and it's quite understandable. The message is not emotional per se but it takes the form of an appeal to emotion, mostly fear of "hell" in JP's analogy. For instance, whether M103 exists or not, there is always the possibility that a crazy radical will kill for a word, a tweet, a drawing, or a caricature. So what would change exactly after M103 is not exactly that, and that's where the video fails. It fails in outlining the consequences in an intelligible language.

Data said:
My guess is that most people aren't intellectually able to follow his more complex and verbose talks. On the other side, such short implicit messages could be dangerous too, because some viewers may interpret entirely different things into them. A little bit of explanation would have gone a long way.

But it could be that he was emotionally motivated to choose this different format.

The change of format (from elaborate to simplistic) could imply that he's become disillusioned with people's capacity to think and to be receptive to constructed arguments.
 
luc said:
Regarding Islam, JP tweeted this survey among Muslims worldwide the other day: _http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

And what point did he make with it?

luc said:
If the research is sound, it may shed some light on the status quo of Muslim thought and values. There's an argument to be made that Muslims are indeed quite conservative and supportive of sharia law. Such surveys don't reveal of course WHY Muslims are expressing these values, i.e. whether it's because of their religion or other factors such as their country's culture, tradition, socio-economic factors etc. But still, there seem to be some strong beliefs common among all Muslims that were interviewed, regardless of their country - not all of them negative IMO. Notice that most Muslims seem to embrace the theory of evolution, except Muslims in the US...

Interesting. So they basically share majority support for conservatism/traditional values. The right in the US and elsewhere would be glad to hear this. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom