I commend everyone

[BikerDude]

And in my personal opinion any person who identifies as a Christian or Muslim or whatever else does not get to then choose some sub set of belief. They buy the whole package.

You've said this before.

Please can you explain how this point of view applies to the Thirty Years' War, Henry the Eighths dissolution of the monasteries, and the Troubles in Ireland?

I'm just curious.

It has nothing to do with any of them.
And Again I don't understand why you keep equating the criticism of ideas with warfare and genocide and racism.

Here is an article written in the wake of the France Shootings by a European cleric.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

And everything that he has said in there is factually correct based on the officially codified doctrine of Islam.
It is clear that these are central ideas that define Islam and time and again we are given clear evidence of this by people willing to kill and die in the name of those ideas.
We see these beliefs play out in countries where the majority of people are Muslim as the lack of personal freedoms, womens rights, gay rights etc.
For a person to simply redefine Islam as something else despite the repeated statements by clerics and the more than ample evidence world wide and scriptural writing is IMO precisely like softening the term Nazi by making the case that there are good Nazi's.
It's beside the point. It only serves to muddy the water and shield vile ideas from criticism.
The simple fact is that the Jackbooted, vile form of Nazi is a truer expression. As is the "radical cleric" or the "fundamentalist Christian" The issue is about ideas. And ideas have consequence. 
Here is the explaination for publishing the Clerics statement in USA today

Choudary, a dedicated London-based radical who defended the 9/11 attacks, is not an appealing figure. But as one of Europe's most visible and outspoken Islamist leaders, he also has both influence and insight, making him a natural choice to write the other side.

His argument is neither an incitement to violence nor a defense of the murders. Both of those would have been unacceptable. Rather, it is a tempered analysis of the motivations behind tragedies like the Charlie Hebdo attack: Nothing is more central to Islam, he points out, than the sanctity of the religion's founder, the prophet Mohammed. So Muslims, passionate in their faith, are duty-bound to reject Western standards of free speech that tolerate blasphemy to the prophet.

Most Americans repudiate this reasoning, and so do more tolerant Muslims. But that doesn't make understanding it any less important.

Twelve people were killed Wednesday in Paris because of it. Hundreds more worldwide have died in riots driven by the same passions. The U.S. military has struggled to cope with it, particularly after the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan. It is at the core of Europe's increasingly hostile debate over Muslim immigration, and every bit as central to the broader clash between the West and radical Islam.

It needs to be understood and countered.

Yet our critics argue that the appropriate response is to blind ourselves. Hear no evil, see no evil, and all will be well.

As sympathetic as their case might be on an emotional level, they are just plain wrong. Ignorance is not bliss, and the long contest against extremist Islam will not be won by donning blindfolds. As Sun Tzu said, "If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril."

The same reasoning underlies our longstanding commitment to publishing an "opposing view" to the Editorial Board's "our view." If some readers are offended by an unpopular opinion, more are left better informed.

In a curious way, the reader reaction since we published Choudary's opinion seems to confirm this. While the broad social media discussion about the wisdom of publishing Choudary's opinion is predictably negative, internal reader commentary ? reflecting people who actually read the debate ? is more subdued than in some previous opposing view controversies, and it is about evenly split.

Perhaps that's attributable to the nature of the Charlie Hebdo story. French satirists were murdered for being bold enough to criticize Islam. We would have dishonored their memories by refusing to publish offensive commentary from the other side.

[BikerDude]

Despite the well-known and immutable internet tenant that the first to invoke the Nazis loses the argument,

Yeah it sux that I don't have any other better example to invoke.
Basically I need a group who's ideas and actions are universally loathsome while not enjoying the sheltering special treatment that religion enjoys.
A person doesn't get away with softening the term Nazi. You can't say "I'm a Nazi and a really great guy! Love the Jews. All that crazy stuff before? That was a few bad apples. Those where "Extremist Nazis." Waving a flag with a Swastika is not ambiguous.
Yet when it comes to religions we allow people to do this all the time.

[jgiffin]

I have to be completely honest.

The point I have been trying to make:

I do not see genocide as a particularly Dudeist response to any situation.
IMHDO of course.

You might be right. And I get it. But I've yet to hear a tenable alternative solution to the current situation. To my ears, there are three propositions on the table:

(1) Kill, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate every muslim who doesn't renounce his/her faith. Let's call this "Team Genocide/Guantanamo." One vote for "yes" here. Meekon, I'ma put you down as a "maybe."

(2)  Continue putting up with random (albeit frequent, predictable, and possibly escalating) acts of deadly violence by muslims until islam outgrows this awkward phase and develops into something more like modern christianity - no less absurd but a little less murdery. Let's call this "Team Chamberlain."

(3)  Cooperate with muslims and vigorously identify, punish, and perhaps kill all those who offend, intentionally or not, the worshipful prophet or whom muslims otherwise deem unfit for this moral coil. Let's call this "Team Vichy."

Did I miss any solutions? Seriously - what is left? Presuming there are no viable alternatives, your preference would seem to depend on which side you see as the oppressor and which the oppressed. (1) Likely results in millions of death, disproportionately muslim. (2) Likely results in continued attrition on both sides, probably more heavily muslim, in virtual perpetuity. (3) Likely results in millions of deaths and a muslim world. It's conceivable deaths reach billions - but that's true whether things are escalated now or simply continue on. I'd rather see movement than continue the slow burn - hey, now that actually is a Nazi-esque similarity.

[jgiffin]

Basically I need a group who's ideas and actions are universally loathsome and not enjoying the sheltering special treatment that religion enjoys.

Pedophiles and politicians come to mind.

But I'm loathe to offend pedophiles by putting them in that company.

[BikerDude]

I have to be completely honest.

The point I have been trying to make:

I do not see genocide as a particularly Dudeist response to any situation.
IMHDO of course.

You might be right. And I get it. But I've yet to hear a tenable alternative solution to the current situation. To my ears, there are three propositions on the table:

(1) Kill, imprison, or otherwise incapacitate every muslim who doesn't renounce his/her faith. Let's call this "Team Genocide/Guantanamo." One vote for "yes" here. Meekon, I'ma put you down as a "maybe."

(2)  Continue putting up with random (albeit frequent, predictable, and possibly escalating) acts of deadly violence by muslims until islam outgrows this awkward phase and develops into something more like modern christianity - no less absurd but a little less murdery. Let's call this "Team Chamberlain."

(3)  Cooperate with muslims and vigorously identify, punish, and perhaps kill all those who offend, intentionally or not, the worshipful prophet or whom muslims otherwise deem unfit for this moral coil. Let's call this "Team Vichy."

Did I miss any solutions? Seriously - what is left? Presuming there are no viable alternatives, your preference would seem to depend on which side you see as the oppressor and which the oppressed. (1) Likely results in millions of death, disproportionately muslim. (2) Likely results in continued attrition on both sides, probably more heavily muslim, in virtual perpetuity. (3) Likely results in millions of deaths and a muslim world. It's conceivable deaths reach billions - but that's true whether things are escalated now or simply continue on. I'd rather see movement than continue the slow burn - hey, now that actually is a Nazi-esque similarity.

Wow!
Over the line.
I'd say a solution lies in the change of perceptions.
Number 1 is nuts.
2 is in fact going to happen.
3 is never going to resolve anything. There will be an endless supply as long as people allow horrible ideas to be above reproach as long as they are packaged as religion. Moderate versions simply form a bridge to more radical forms. Christianity has not shed it's lunatics because the hate is still there. It never will.
Secular society will continue it's march toward a more free and enlightened world.
In the process we should not accept the preservation of lunacy by making it sacrosanct.
A person declaring themselves to certain beliefs should be akin to declaring themselves to be a child molester. Societies where these ideas flourish will not be a part of a flourishing economy. They simply will not be a part of the progress toward a better world and will not enjoy the fruits of it. They will be marginalized. Not by killing them but by changing people's perceptions and changing our willingness to accept crazy hateful ideas even if people dress them up as something else.
In societies with very large percentage on non religious people this has started.
It will bear fruit. Over generations.
Once religious beliefs become equivalent to child molesters or politicians and peoples intuitions follow suit. Hearing that a person is "God Fearing" goes from a good thing to a condemnation and people basic perceptions follow suit. Basically as soon as being religious becomes a deal breaker. The nicest person in the world is made an outcast by choosing to ascribe to bad ideas and irrationality.
 
As hopeless as it seems it also appears that the late Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said that the religious furvor that we are seeing is actually the death rattles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WhSK0_9FJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p45Ut9Iizi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulb1tmMgq8c

[jgiffin]

I think you're right about which option will, in fact, occur, BD. But let's be clear about a few things.

Accepting the status quo means we shouldn't act surprised or offended as muslim violence continues. Not surprised because we expressly acknowledge it will proceed. Not offended because, despite that knowledge, we chose to let the violence take its course instead of effecting change through force.

Changing perceptions and an evolving secular society are fantastic ideals. Muslims don't want any part of them. The pedophile is shamed and prosecuted because his or her actions are not endorsed by the society in which he or she lives. But if the pedophile lived in a community in which nearly the entire population either engaged in pedophilia, tacitly approved of pedophilia in principle, or believed all pedophiles went to heaven - well, you see where I'm going.  Let's not hold our breath awaiting "moderate" muslims shaming the rest into passivity.

This isn't a problem we can solve with hashtags, public statements of solidarity, or marches. But, you're completely right, that's all we're going to see. (I'm listening to the youtube clips now - thanks in advance for the links).

[jgiffin]

Holy shit, the guy in the second link, arguing with Hitchens, conflated the Founders and the Pilgrims to "prove" America was premised on christianity.

I miss Hitchens. Glad he was prolific enough to leave behind so much content.

[Hominid]

Changing perceptions will take generations and generations.  I do think it's the only logical choice; everyone wants that magic bullet but - religion took eons to become entrenched in our society.  It'll take some time to reverse the process.

To get some perspective here: I saw a report today that compared terrorist-caused deaths with the race of the terrorists themselves.  Muslims make up less than 10%.  The majority are Mexican.  (Think drug wars.)

[jgiffin]

That's interesting, and perhaps accurate in a sense, but very likely dependent upon a very specific definition of "terrorist" used in the report. I think the problem with islam is something more than the base criminality typically associated with the drug trade. Don't get me wrong, let's call off the "drug war" too. That, in fact, seems much more easily accomplished. Finally.

Bigger picture, though, I just can't buy into premise that the rest of the world simply has to suffer the effects of islam until it slowly evolves away from violence. It puts the burden on the wrong parties. It's like saying, "hey, sure I'm pissing on your rug but just be patient, I'll get tired of doing it in a couple twenty or thirty generations." For all my un-dudely thinking (admittedly, at least topically) in this thread, I still think the Dude would not have suffered that insult if he had the means to stop it - we do.

[Hominid]

That's interesting, and perhaps accurate in a sense, but very likely dependent upon a very specific definition of "terrorist" used in the report. I think the problem with islam is something more than the base criminality typically associated with the drug trade. Don't get me wrong, let's call off the "drug war" too. That, in fact, seems much more easily accomplished. Finally.

Bigger picture, though, I just can't buy into premise that the rest of the world simply has to suffer the effects of islam until it slowly evolves away from violence. It puts the burden on the wrong parties. It's like saying, "hey, sure I'm pissing on your rug but just be patient, I'll get tired of doing it in a couple twenty or thirty generations." For all my un-dudely thinking (admittedly, at least topically) in this thread, I still think the Dude would not have suffered that insult if he had the means to stop it - we do.

Point well taken.  But I don't know what the answer is...  These jihadists will continue to wreak havoc as long as young men and women all over the globe remain to be susceptible to radicalization.  What's the attraction???  I just don't get it.

[DigitalBuddha]

In the meantime, these are the fucking undude morons that want to run the world...

The Muslim and the glass door

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CewqB-N4gAI

[Hominid]

Lol ...     +1 DB!

[BikerDude]

I think you're right about which option will, in fact, occur, BD. But let's be clear about a few things.

Accepting the status quo means we shouldn't act surprised or offended as muslim violence continues. Not surprised because we expressly acknowledge it will proceed. Not offended because, despite that knowledge, we chose to let the violence take its course instead of effecting change through force.

Changing perceptions and an evolving secular society are fantastic ideals. Muslims don't want any part of them. The pedophile is shamed and prosecuted because his or her actions are not endorsed by the society in which he or she lives. But if the pedophile lived in a community in which nearly the entire population either engaged in pedophilia, tacitly approved of pedophilia in principle, or believed all pedophiles went to heaven - well, you see where I'm going.  Let's not hold our breath awaiting "moderate" muslims shaming the rest into passivity.

This isn't a problem we can solve with hashtags, public statements of solidarity, or marches. But, you're completely right, that's all we're going to see. (I'm listening to the youtube clips now - thanks in advance for the links).

This is true. The insular nature of Islamic countries makes them impenetrable.
But they do also become isolated from the rest of the world which will increasingly have effects.
Not really sure how you prosecute the war of ideas in this instance. But it can be done.
Look at Iran. Other than the latest backslide which IMO was brought on by the US invasion of Iraq and the saber rattling, Iran had been on a path toward increasing freedoms. Admittedly slow with a long way to go but none the less real improvements. Then we had the knee jerk reaction that resulted in them electing a former military war hero in Amijinidad. It was a complete reaction to US presence in Iraq and then you get the ramping up of the nuclear program etc etc. Bottom line is that western culture is appealing to people even in the most repressed Islamic nations. I'm told that Tehran really rocks at night.
And the UAE is one of the greatest parties on this blue marble for sure.
The politics of Saturday nights is a strong force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QiLlgQG0s
No coincidence that the paraquat would call it all "Corruption".
Yes it is thank you very much.
It's also the best hope for progress.
Caucasians, bowling and zesty coitus can save the world.

[BikerDude]

Holy shit, the guy in the second link, arguing with Hitchens, conflated the Founders and the Pilgrims to "prove" America was premised on christianity.

I miss Hitchens. Glad he was prolific enough to leave behind so much content.

Oh I know!
It is literally depressing to watch videos like this.
The first video where the guy calls Christianity a revealed truth.
The interviewer makes the point that none of the people who wrote the gospels ever met Jesus in real life. He had been dead for anywhere from 80 to several hundred years.
And the Guy tells us with a straight face that they met Jesus because Jesus appeared to them.
And that's the foundation. Based on the supposed appearances of a ghost. And to the mind of a Christian this is a positive. A revealed religion.
I've grown to find it infuriating that we are asked to listen to this garbage.
You see a Christopher Hitchens or a Carl Sagan and you juxtapose them against the fucking waste of oxygen that these religious nut jobs are and it's just depressing that we need to engage in this sort of nonsense. These jerks have as much credibility as a palm reader or a fortune teller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz1EE_c0ops

VS (Grab a beer. Sit back. Hilarity ensues.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5zUjvJQQYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4CsLgCwmU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpryi8ffdJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuR0aF0Vw58

[DigitalBuddha]

Lol ...     +1 DB!

They x-rayed him later to see if he was hurt...