Individuals vs Group

[odeon]

I'm not following, I must admit. Are we talking about the same thing?

It's hard to tell when the subject changes. Seemed to be talking about state sanctioned murder led by government and enacted by the church, and possibly if lower ranking leaders should have taking a stand against higher ranking leaders of their own church. Though the question did seem to possibly be as simple as, should one take a stand against another taking a stand. Either way, my answer is sufficient as, sure why not.

I don't think it's lower rank against higher rank, here.

A more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.

Appears to be more like sheep killing sheep of a different herd.

Yes.

[odeon]

The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.

Not sure if it's even about reasonable blame, but reasonable fear. Reasonable fear is something that can be applied to a number of scenarios concerning so-called isolated actions groups, not only religious ones.

It's fear, sure, but I'd hesitate using the word reasonable.

[odeon]

Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations.

What makes you believe that, outside of public statements to the media?

Since I'm not a member of their congregations, not much. Most of what I know about them is through media of some kind or another, which, btw, is true for most of us here, regardless of opinion.

That they do fight extremism is a reasonable conclusion, though, if you think about it. It makes sense, considering what is happening in the world.

['andersom']

Yes, it's been disturbing to read about things like a part of China recently cracking down on people wearing burqas. France actually has similar rules in places like schools. Why? Why would an otherwise freedom-loving nation do something like that? (France, not China. I would expect that behavior from China, sadly, and it may distract terrorist attention from the rest of the world to focus on conflicts there.) That's the kind of thing I mean by having respect for religion. Of all the things you could target, you pick something that's an important symbol to a religious minority and matters far more to them than it does to you?

France has a lot of similar rules in place. It's complete madness. I listened to the radio yesterday and happened across an interview with a French Jew who was considering leaving his country, in light of the recent terrorism acts but also the fact that he no longer felt he could say what he wanted there. He said that he no longer identified with his country.

The exodus of French Jews is going on for a while already. Israel has lots of places where one can buy good baguettes and croissants because of that.

['andersom']

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.

Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations. I also believe that they know perfectly well that they have to be rather vocal about it since, regardless of actual blame, the actions of those few affect them and their religion.

I see leaders, and Muslim individuals stand up against extremism. Just like there are also more going for the extremist pov. Would not be surprised if the aggression will shift more towards average Muslims not wanting to agree with extremism. It is important to get the average Muslim as integrated as can be, and safe.
The split between extremist and average is not only happening for Muslims.

I'm not that optimistic about the near future.

The aggression from the extremists or the aggression from the bigots who think every Muslim is an extremist?

There is already quite a lot of the former happening in some countries, notably Syria.

More aggression from extremists, from all denominations and backgrounds.

[Jack]

I don't think it's lower rank against higher rank, here.

Me either, which is why the comparison was difficult.

[El]

Yes, it's been disturbing to read about things like a part of China recently cracking down on people wearing burqas. France actually has similar rules in places like schools. Why? Why would an otherwise freedom-loving nation do something like that? (France, not China. I would expect that behavior from China, sadly, and it may distract terrorist attention from the rest of the world to focus on conflicts there.) That's the kind of thing I mean by having respect for religion. Of all the things you could target, you pick something that's an important symbol to a religious minority and matters far more to them than it does to you?

France has a lot of similar rules in place. It's complete madness. I listened to the radio yesterday and happened across an interview with a French Jew who was considering leaving his country, in light of the recent terrorism acts but also the fact that he no longer felt he could say what he wanted there. He said that he no longer identified with his country.

The exodus of French Jews is going on for a while already. Israel has lots of places where one can buy good baguettes and croissants because of that.

I heard about that on the radio this week (Jews leaving France- and other parts of Europe, as well.  Not the bread thing).  Fucking shitty.  =(

['andersom']

I heard about that on the radio this week (Jews leaving France- and other parts of Europe, as well.  Not the bread thing).  Fucking shitty.  =(

Apparently 7000 Jews emigrated from France to Israel last year. France has the biggest Jewish community of Europe. And France is fled the most. Part of it is the not feeling safe in France. Other thing is that Netanyahu is actively promoting Jewish immigrants. Demographically he needs them, as did the Israeli leaders before him. The average birthrates of the Palestines are higher than those of the Jewish Israeli people.
Jewish immigrants get massive support from the state, finding homes, work and learning the language.

Word has it that Israel is expecting more than double the amount of French immigrants in 2015.

[odeon]

Tragic.

[RageBeoulve]

When it comes to murder, not certain there's a worse evil, if based on who is doing the killing.

People more willing to commit murder.

More willing doesn't make it a greater evil, and if anything it's not a matter of more willing but more authorized. People who support ideals which sanction murder don't generally feel personally accountable when people are killed.

They feel even less accountable when it is the norm, like under fascist systems.

There's a term for what you're describing, it's called "the banality of evil"

Exactly. The most evil actions aren't committed by crazy people, but by "tolerant" people. People who are trying to be "open minded" to the point of disregarding their conscience in order to do so.

[Gopher Gary]

Tragic.

*wrings hands*

 

[odeon]

Tragic.

*wrings hands*

 

 

[odeon]

Re drawing the Prophet: there's nothing mentioned in the Quran itself about the perils of imaging him in any shape or form. In the Hadith, I believe he stresses that he is an ordinary man and should be treated as such, with no special attention drawn to his person, which is where the whole do-not-produce-the-likeness-of-the-prophet thing originated.

Islam is fairly fragmented, though, and there are many examples of Muslims imaging Mohammad throughout the history of the religion without anything bad happening as a result.

[Pyraxis]

I read some discussion that suggested that drawing Allah was the problem, not drawing the Prophet. Allah cannot be defined by human thought. Becoming outraged at drawings of Mohammed was to elevate him to the level of Allah, which was actually sacrilege, because he's not considered the son of God or anything like Jesus is.

That sure doesn't seem like the message the fundies have, though.

[odeon]

More or less the point made in the Hadith, I believe. The fundies choose to do a very strict interpretation.

Just read this, speaking of fundamentalists.