The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 13th, 2018, 12:18 pm

I totally agree. That's precisely why I said to KT, I don't think getting into the business of comparing "body counts" is going to be very helpful in meaningfully analysing the morality of Christianity vs that of Islam.

Dachshund

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3436
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by LuckyR » August 13th, 2018, 1:08 pm

Dachshund wrote:
August 13th, 2018, 12:18 pm
I totally agree. That's precisely why I said to KT, I don't think getting into the business of comparing "body counts" is going to be very helpful in meaningfully analysing the morality of Christianity vs that of Islam.

Dachshund
Exactly. And I am sure that is the basis for your conclusion that the followers of one shouldn't be treated all that different from the followers of the other.
"As usual... it depends."

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 13th, 2018, 1:57 pm

Dachshund:
Today, we are obsessed with historicity in a way that ancient people, like those of the Old Testament were not; that is to say, we are fixated with the very strict, literalistic reading of text, whereas the ancients were far more comfortable with allegorical/ symbolic ways of reading/interpreting the meanings of the written word as it was (materially/physically) recorded in their own texts.
So, have you now learned something or will you apply your double standard?

We do not have reliable historical records of many of the events in the Hebrew Bible. We do not know if Moses ordered three thousand of his own people killed:
"Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin." (32:26-30)
What we do know, according to the story, is that they were killed because they had built idols and when Moses asked them to pick sides they did not side with him.

Now, you may think that we are “obsessed with historicity in a way that ancient people, like those of the Old Testament were not”, but you draw the wrong conclusion if you think these ancient people understood these stories simply as allegory. The point of the distinction between ancient and modern understanding of these stories is that for the ancients the question of historical accuracy did not arise. They made no distinction. The whole of the truth is not revealed in observable events. Both the recording of events and stories that reveal the larger truth behind the events are seamless parts of the whole. We do not know which if any of these events actually occurred or if they occurred that they happened according to the stories. Myth and allegory is not the equivalent of fiction. You can’t sweep it all under the rug by labeling it allegory.

We do not have reliable historical information on the Israelite's conquest of Canaan. When it comes to Islam, however, the historical record is more reliable, but the cautions you cite with reading the Bible apply here as well. And what does history tell us:
The sum total of all casualties on all sides in all the battles of Muhammad might be more or less 1,000. A contemporary Islamic scholar, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, says that "during the 23-years in which this revolution was completed, 80 military expeditions took place. The Prophet, however, only participated in some 27 of them, and an even smaller number of expeditions actually involved any fighting. 259 Muslims and 759 non-Muslims died in these battles – a total of 1018 dead." A non-Muslim writer, Margaret Nydell, mentions in the fifth edition of her best-selling Understanding Arabs, that "Muhammad fought fewer than ten battles in his lifetime, resulting in barely 1,000 casualties on both sides." (Wiki, “Military career of Muhammad”)
You say:
Rather, they were particular situations, and they were always linked to grave depravity on the part of the people who were the objects of that violence. So, it was not just any old (random) town that had this kind of extreme sentence ( i.e. "the Ban") passed on it, but only those particular towns that were inhabited by gravely immoral people, people who had, for example, sacrificed their own children in pagan worship or who practiced beatiality, or who had , in the past, actively harmed Israel.
According to the source you cite:
Some appearances of ḥāmas suggest further that “violence” is that which defies or ignores the sovereignty of God and the intentions of God for the world.
The unstated assumption is that the sovereignty of God is manifested in “God’s people” and that they know God’s intentions.
This use of the word is consistent with other uses in that the nations appear as arrogant and self-acclaimed powers that act contrary to the purposes of God.
And so, violence against them is justified. This is the same justification used in Islam - in short, our enemies are God’s enemies.

You cite the Oxford article on violence in the Old Testament in order to seek clarity and understanding, but ignore the one on violence in Islam. Why? Is it because here you seek only to condemn, and clarity and understanding interferes with your goal?
Dachshund:
if you read the Bible in such a way that that it leads you to say, "Hey, violence is a good thing! I should be more violent !" or that "God is hateful and violent", you have IPSO FACTO misread it
If you read the Koran in such a way that that it leads you to say, "Hey, violence is a good thing! I should be more violent !" or that "God is hateful and violent", you have IPSO FACTO misread it.

Here are some of many passages from the Hebrew Bible:
A God zealous and avenging is Jehovah, An avenger is Jehovah, and possessing fury. An avenger is Jehovah on His adversaries, And He is watching for His enemies. (Nahum 1:2)
A less literal translation:
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies.
for a zealous God is Jehovah thy God in thy midst -- lest the anger of Jehovah thy God burn against thee, and He hath destroyed thee from off the face of the ground.


for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. (Deuteronomy 6:15)
You belittle hermeneutics when it stands opposed to your ends but appeal to it when it suits them.
Origen's observation was, briefly, that we must read the ENTIRE Bible ( i.e. both the Old Testament and the New Testament) from the standpoint of the LAST (the FINAL) book of the Bible.
For the Jewish people the Bible ends before the New Testament begins.

A growing number of educated Christians now see past what the “Church Fathers” imposed on the religion. They reject the claim of canonical texts. Whether Revelations comes first or last or not at all makes no difference.

And, of course, Revelations is the final battle of 'us' against 'them'. 'Them' includes:
those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (2:9)
What distinguishes real Jews from those who are not? The answer is ambiguous:
“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:39-44)
On one reading it refers to those who would put him to death, but on another those who do not obey him as Abraham obeyed God, those who do not accept that God sent him are from the devil.

'Us' means Christians and 'them' means everyone who does not accept Jesus as God or the Son of God. And so, even some Christians are not true Christians because they hold that Jesus was a man. And, in fact, some Christians were declared heretics by the Church for this reason and murdered.

The Christian message here is not that we should be more violent, but that those who oppose Christianity are from the devil. Violence toward them is violence against Satan.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 13th, 2018, 2:37 pm

LuckyR:
Dachshund wrote:
I totally agree. That's precisely why I said to KT, I don't think getting into the business of comparing "body counts" is going to be very helpful in meaningfully analysing the morality of Christianity vs that of Islam.
Exactly. And I am sure that is the basis for your conclusion that the followers of one shouldn't be treated all that different from the followers of the other.
I think that one may have gone right over his head.

It is not a question of the body count, but of historical accounts. Those who lack objectivity tell stories of the good guys versus the bad guys. In the West it is the story of an evil empire invading peace loving Christians. There is plenty of historical work that would serve as a corrective to this view, providing one is more interested in the truth than in protecting one’s cherished views. Instead I would like to draw attention to another part of the story that is not often told or heard:

The Crusades are still a sore subject in the Muslim world, but it’s easy to forget the havoc they wreaked on the Jews of Europe. Time after time, as Crusaders slogged southeast on their umpteenth trip to the Holy Land, they slaughtered the Jews in their path. They herded them into synagogues and set the buildings alight. The Crusaders killed so many Jews in the name of their Christian faith that it was the most stunning demographic blow to European Jewry until the Holocaust. Which, just a friendly reminder, happened in Christian, civilized Europe only 70-some years ago.

And if you don’t believe me about the brutal repression of Manichean Christians, you can read about it here in the Catholic Encyclopedia (a publication that “chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces”). The Christian Church was ruthless with people whose faith was in any way a deviation from the canon, torturing and burning heretics at the stake. After Martin Luther pinned his theses to a church door, unintentionally spawning a new wing of Christianity, it led to hundreds of years of on-and-off religious warfare between Christians, spilling each other’s blood in the fervent belief that their vision of Christ was the truest. And it’s not ancient history: Violence between Protestants and Catholics continued in Christian Ireland until the very end of the 20th century.
The article concludes:
No religion is inherently violent. No religion is inherently peaceful. Religion, any religion, is a matter of interpretation, and it is often in that interpretation that we see either beauty or ugliness — or, more often, if we are mature enough to think nuanced thoughts, something in between.
(Julia Ioffe, https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/if-islam-i ... istianity/)

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 13th, 2018, 3:58 pm

Dachshund wrote:
August 13th, 2018, 12:18 pm
I totally agree. That's precisely why I said to KT, I don't think getting into the business of comparing "body counts" is going to be very helpful in meaningfully analysing the morality of Christianity vs that of Islam.

Dachshund
Hoho.
Is that because in a game of body counts, Islam can't compare with the mountains of dead offered to us by Christians?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7824
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » August 13th, 2018, 6:54 pm

To any people who happen upon this page and wonder about the strange universe in which they appear to have landed, let me assure you that this forum contains absolutely no polemicists or ideologues. All of us here display great discipline in maintaining strict objectivity about these things. Oh, aside from one guy :)

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 13th, 2018, 8:33 pm

Greta:
To any people who happen upon this page and wonder about the strange universe in which they appear to have landed, let me assure you that this forum contains absolutely no polemicists or ideologues. All of us here display great discipline in maintaining strict objectivity about these things. Oh, aside from one guy :)
I count two. One wants to scapegoat Islam but exonerate Jews and Christians of wrongdoing because they are the good guys and have God on their side. The other is an moral absolutist, a Manicean, who believes good people will thank him for unilaterally altering their sacred texts because they are good people and could not but thank him for wiping out hate.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7824
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » August 13th, 2018, 10:29 pm

Fair enough. I suppose only one of them is spectacular (melodramatic?) in his bias.

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 14th, 2018, 2:21 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
August 13th, 2018, 8:33 pm
I count two. One wants to scapegoat Islam but exonerate Jews and Christians of wrongdoing because they are the good guys..."
I seem to recall that in one of your recent posts you disclosed the fact that you are an American citizen, Foolosopher? You are, I also know, well educated in terms of formal academic qualifications, and your prose style suggests to me that you are quite probably a white male (?)

I may be wrong about your ethnicity and sex, but what I can confirm is that culturally speaking you are very much a Westerner through and through. That means you have been profoundly conditioned - (there's no escaping it) -in every cell of your body by the traditional Judeo- Christian world-view. Moreover, you are, IMO, an individual who is, in fact, still very deeply and directly connected to the twin wellsprings of his culture, i.e, the ancient "cities" of Athens and Jerusalem ( even though you might deny it).

Given this, what I find difficult to understand is why you seem (?) to hold such an irreverent and hostile attitude towards to the Christian religion, the Christian church and Christians themselves (?)

Or, is it the case I am just imagining this, and you do not in fact have any material problems with modern Christianity ?

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 14th, 2018, 2:25 am

Greta wrote:
August 13th, 2018, 10:29 pm
Fair enough. I suppose only one of them is spectacular (melodramatic?) in his bias.
But out, squirrel-brain ! Your presence on this OP ( MY OP) is not appreciated.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7824
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Problem with Christianity

Post by Greta » August 14th, 2018, 2:35 am

Dachshund, given that you have shown yourself to be a superstitious obsessive neo-fascist, one would expect that possessing a brain the size of a squirrel's would be aspirational for you! Your brain would be more akin to that of a stegosaurus, at best. Your values appear to be of that vintage anyway.

A major issue with the Christian church is that it seeks disproportionate influence as compared with their numbers in the community. As a minority, Christians should not be dictating public policy as much as they have done, especially in regards to euthanasia. The lack of mercy killing of the hopelessly suffering and vulnerable is an avoidable ongoing tragedy that is largely the fault of Christian lawyers, doctors and politicians.

However, since Christians dominate the halls of power, they dictate the terms. Then they not only complain about not having enough power, but have the unmitigated hypocritical gall to complain that Jews are doing to them what they themselves routinely do to secular citizens.

Another issue is that Christians tend to worry more about embryos than suffering old people. That is, they tend to care most for insensate blobs of protoplasm ... and, of course, they care about interfering with gays being citizens of full status.

So if you want to know what kinds of problems people have with Christianity, look no further.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 14th, 2018, 3:54 pm

Dachshund:
Moreover, you are, IMO, an individual who is, in fact, still very deeply and directly connected to the twin wellsprings of his culture, i.e, the ancient "cities" of Athens and Jerusalem
I am deeply connected to Christian world only as a matter of historical and cultural situatedness, that is, because I was born into it, but its theology has always been foreign to me as are its practices. I take seriously the idea of a liberal education as a liberation from the narrow confines of our situatedness, but liberation is not transcendence. It is a matter of attaining critical distance through the study of the intellectual and spiritual history of the West, as well, in my case, a bit of India, China, and Japan. I am not bound to the belief that this or that is the correct way because it is our way.

I put Athens, that is, reason and self-determination, above Jerusalem, that is, revelation and obedience to a human authority claiming to be divine authority. I put Jerusalem above Christian Rome. I consider Jesus to have been a Rabbi and Paul a gifted rhetorician misled by his psychotic visions. It is an open question what Jesus meant when he said that the kingdom of God or Heaven is at hand, but Paul was simply dead wrong in thinking that it was to be an event that would happen in his lifetime. Paul did not intend to found a religion. There was no need or time for that since the end of time was near. I think the messianic promise was broken and a religion was created to so as not to accept that fact - the death of the messiah becomes part of a plan to save us, not really death but resurrection, and a second coming.

Given this, what I find difficult to understand is why you seem (?) to hold such an irreverent and hostile attitude towards to the Christian religion, the Christian church and Christians themselves (?)
Critical? Yes. Irreverent? Sure. Hostile? That depends. If you want to go to church and worship a man/god go ahead. I won’t even object to you saying “Merry Christmas”. If, however, you want to establish a theocracy or dictate how others are to live according to whatever you deem to be Christian values, then I am hostile to such actions. If you try to use freedom of religion as a weapon to protect discrimination and intolerance, then I am hostile to such actions.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 14th, 2018, 6:40 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
August 13th, 2018, 8:33 pm
The other is an moral absolutist, a Manicean, who believes good people will thank him for unilaterally altering their sacred texts because they are good people and could not but thank him for wiping out hate.
The only reason for them not being keen on that is if they're emotionally attached to the hate, but they claim they don't like hate, so they really ought to be on my side with this, and that would make this fully achievable, so what's the big problem? Also, failure to do this will open the door to Nazism and other vile ideologies to find a prophet and God that will give them sacred status, thereby leading to people like you having to defend their right to propagate holy hate too. The same rules need to be applied to all ideologies which spread hate, not favouring any on arbitrary grounds. If you don't do this evenly, you're biased, and if you don't do it at all, you're reckless in the extreme, because this holy and unholy hate kills vast numbers of people.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 15th, 2018, 9:11 am

You can imagine the questionnaire:
Q: Are you or any of your family hell bent on world domination?
yes/no.
Q: Are you committed to the overthrown of Western freedom?
yes/no
Q; Do you think Mohammed exhorts all Muslims to slay infidels where ever they are?
yes/no

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be refused entry in to the USA.

Steve3007
Posts: 5781
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 15th, 2018, 11:57 am

Bolding below is added by me for emphasis.
Dachshund wrote:So the instances in the Old Testament where it it is documented ( recorded) that they were required to go out and annihilate the the whole population of a particular town, for example, are not to be understood as instances where they had been ordered to simply go out and kill anybody indiscriminantly. Rather, they were particular situations, and they were always linked to grave depravity on the part of the people who were the objects of that violence. So, it was not just any old (random) town that had this kind of extreme sentence ( i.e. "the Ban") passed on it, but only those particular towns that were inhabited by gravely immoral people, people who had, for example, sacrificed their own children in pagan worship or who practiced beatiality, or who had , in the past, actively harmed Israel. So, my point is , firstly, that the violence that was applied by the Hebrew tribes of the OT - the ancient Israelites - was not, in short, simply expansionist or indiscriminate (i.e. lacking any kind of moral justification whatsoever) as was the case with the violence ( of "jihad") that was brought to bear on (all) non-believers by Mohammad's muslim armies in the "Wars of Conquest".
You've also previously mentioned such things as sodomy as examples of the depravity which justified massacres in the Old Testament.
Dachshund wrote:The violence actions of the OT's Israelites are, in fact, restricted to one plot of land ( i.e. the "promised land") and it is is only ever directed against pagan tribes (like the Amelekites) or the inhabitants of towns like Sodom and Gomorrah, in respect of their grave immorality ( such as: the ritual sacrifice of children; the practice of bestiality, sodomy, and other profoundly immoral/(evil) behaviours)
This excuse for massacring innocent people - that they are part of a community which is deemed to be in a state of depravity, to have committed immoral acts or to have harmed the tribe to which the perpetrators of the massacre belong in the past - is an excuse that is often heard from Islamist terrorists (or would-be terrorists) now, isn't it? There are various proclamations about the supposed immoral, decadent, sexually depraved west. For example, see this extract from some would-be terrorists who wished to blow up a nightclub:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul ... .terrorism

"All those slags dancing around."

Judging by your past words...
Dachshund wrote:When some ugly, 20-something, grossly over-weight, tattoo-festooned, multi-colour haired, loud-mouthed "radical feminist" bitch thinks that it OK not to worry about not having used any form of contraception while she's being banged stupid by some bad- boys at a weekend pool party in the suburbs because : " I can always have a quickie ,"welfare state" ( male wage -slave) funded abortion if I need to". I tend to lose my sense of humour. I don't think what we are talking about is funny in any way at all; quite the opposite. It is literally a deadly - serious business we are discussing.
...I presume you have some sympathy for people who would talk of some women in this way? I presume you wouldn't sympathise with what they intended to do to punish these alleged crimes against sexual morality, but the Old Testament passages to which you refer certainly would.


So, presumably, in the Old Testament, you would say that where it it is documented that they were required to go out and annihilate the whole population of a particular town, the justification for this is pretty similar to the justifications given by some modern Islamist terrorists?

Post Reply