UKIP

[sultan2075]

What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

I struggle to come up with one culture where the concept of "good" and "evil" is radically different from that of another. Certainly there are extremist religious groups who think some odd things about "good" and "evil" but they can't be taken to be representative of a culture. The weird thing about conceptions - when they exist in a vacuum, they don't change, but when they meet other conceptions then they often evolve for the better. The evolution isn't always easy, but it always happens (unless you live in Switzerland).

Some cultures think that when a woman does something that shames the family, she should be killed. Some cultures think that rape victims are also guilty of adultery, and therefore they should be killed. Some cultures think that homosexuals should be executed. Some think that when someone abandons their religion, that person should be killed.*

What do you do when cultures have radically different and incompatible conceptions of good and evil?

I have some difficulty accepting that anyone could say that and not be already coming from a position of prejudice, you know.

Aside from the total nutjobs that exist everywhere, like Johnny Towel-head running around with a sizzling bomb chanting "Allah Allah Allah", or Paddy 'Ra-head doing much the same, or even Yosemite Sam in his shack in the mountains with tinned food and a shotgun eagerly awaiting the coming collapse of society, most cultures are far far closer than you seem to be suggesting when it comes to basic concepts like human decency.

Those "radically different concepts of good and evil" - for over 99% of people they really just don't exist.

Wow. So asking a question that recognizes that different cultures have different views of good and evil is already prejudiced (and then look at the language you used following - a series of crude stereotypes). Am I not supposed to notice that different peoples have different views of good and evil? A man once characterized the political issue of his times in the following words: ""You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted." Is that not a radically different conception of good and evil?

To deny that serious and profound differences in moral commitment exist is implicitly to claim that everyone is, in essence, a good western liberal. That's simply nonsense.

I don't know. I wanted to point out that the concept of 'abrogation' exists within Islam and therefore it is shortsighted to focus on the milder, more tolerant verses since they might be superceded by newer ones.

It doesn't. It exists only in the minds of those calling themselves islamic scholars. The word of god is by its very definition perfect, there can be no abrogation. Where abrogation appears, it is the result of man's inability to understand the word of god.

You could level the same accusation at any religious text, or political manifesto (bringing us neatly back to UKIP). Plenty of pillage, bloodletting, and general skullduggery evident in all of them - to single out the Qu'ran as a benchmark for cultural incompatibility is a bit blinkered, imho - for sure, if you take the words literally, it's a handbook for religious genocide. But view it through the lense of your average 21st century muslim-in-the-street and it's a guidebook - don't drink, be charitable, don't abuse animals, dress modestly, and honour the contracts that you have made with everyone, regardless of religion - which could be taken to include both social and business contracts.

That all sounds well and good. But isn't the bolded material incompatible with viewing it the way you've said your "average 21st century muslim-in-the-street" views it? Does one pick and choose the nice bits from the literal word of God? Secondly, which street? Lebanon and Turkey seem to be liberal outliers in the Muslim world.

I don't know anything about UKIP, but I do find this entire discussion to be interesting.


* on this last see http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/mus ... hezbollah/ Scroll down and you will find 84% of Egyptians polled and 86% of Jordanians polled support the death penalty for apostasy. The only two nations that don't reach into the double-digits are Lebnanon and Turkey.

[markfiend]

Does one pick and choose the nice bits from the literal word of God?

Of course they do. Given that there are passages in the Quran which contradict other passages, it's obvious that one must pick one of the two (or more) contradictory meanings. Believers may not admit that's what they do, but it's inescapable.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

I doubt that the mass-import of a culture that is violently intolerant of anything other than itself can be construed as contributing to 'diversity'.

not quite sure which culture you're on about here. all the successful historical invaders (romans, vikings, the normans) have at some point integrated with the existing population. as far as i know there aren't any modern-day immigrants who match your description.

3. the countless races who have made the uk their home since the dawn of time are the reason we survive as a hopelessy "mongrel" nation. that cultural and genetic diversity is our strenghth. the reality of racial "purity" is the reason why pedigree bulldogs can hardly breathe, let alone catch a cow...and also why it is ill-advised to fuck your sister.
.

"Diversity is strength" is very much a cliche used by very well-meaning people. So tell me: how is it a strength? What makes it a strength? I am genuinely curious.

in my absence this question was answered pretty much as i would have done by markfiend here and EvilBastard here for which, thanks.

Oh God, political debate reduced to slogans like 'diversity is strength'. i'm not even going to bother with this brainless BS anymore.

it's only a slogan if its adopted as such- in my use it is merely a sentence. if the use of words is a reduction of political debate then we are fucked.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

going back to UKIP specifically, Farage defended his "Romanians" comment by saying has no problem with Romanians but with the country of Romania itself. if that then is the case should he not welcome people who chose to leave Romania (and whatever particular thing he dislikes about the country) to come and work here and contribute to the UK's economy?

anyway... most jobs go to the applicant who (in the eyes of the person offering the job) is best suited for the position. if someone wants to do the same job for less money (obviously within minimal-wage and legal requirement) then good luck to them.

[EvilBastard]

Some cultures think that when a woman does something that shames the family, she should be killed. Some cultures think that rape victims are also guilty of adultery, and therefore they should be killed. Some cultures think that homosexuals should be executed. Some think that when someone abandons their religion, that person should be killed.*

* on this last see http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/mus ... hezbollah/ Scroll down and you will find 84% of Egyptians polled and 86% of Jordanians polled support the death penalty for apostasy. The only two nations that don't reach into the double-digits are Lebnanon and Turkey.

That's an interesting article, but what shows up clearly is that these are not cultural references - in each case, the data is cited as "n% of muslims polled", which suggests a religious rather than a cultural viewpoint.
Without disparaging the work that Pew has done, you can make any survey satisfy whatever answers you're looking for - the way a question is phrased, selecting your survey base, etc. You're likely to get very different results, depending on who you ask. And given the tiny sampling size (1000 people in Jordan), I'm absolutely unconvinced that this represents an accurate depiction of broad Jordanian (or any other country's) sensibility. Additionally, if you look at the trend data, there is an uptick about concerns about Islamic extremism, and sympathy for extremist actions is declining. So Pew's report can be interpreted in a number of different ways, depending on what you wanted to highlight.

Further, it is unlikely that Jordanians (or anyone else) who felt strongly that homosexuality (for example) should be punished by death would choose to live in a society (like the UK) where homosexuality was tolerated. The concern that UKIP seems to have is that immigration will lead to a radical and rapid change in the laws of the UK - this is completely unsupported by fact and experience. It took more than 10 years following the first of the major waves of post-war immigration to Britain for laws to be passed that outlawed discrimination against black people (or Irish), and gender discrimination wasn't covered until 1975 (and women have lived in Britain for years).

[EvilBastard]

That all sounds well and good. But isn't the bolded material incompatible with viewing it the way you've said your "average 21st century muslim-in-the-street" views it? Does one pick and choose the nice bits from the literal word of God? Secondly, which street? Lebanon and Turkey seem to be liberal outliers in the Muslim world.

Yes, people do pick and choose the nice bits from the literal word of god. Otherwise it gets too confusing. When it comes to your average muslim (or your average anyone), what is clear is that most people wherever you go want the same things: a job, money in your pocket, a family, somewhere to live, safety, security - depending on specific environments these drives assume different levels of importance, but they're pretty much all the same drives. This is what makes us human. If you asked "Is it more important that people should be put to death for leaving Islam or that your kids can walk down the street without getting blown up?" you might discover that apostasy is actually a really unimportant part of these peoples' worldview.

[nowayjose]

If you asked "Is it more important that people should be put to death for leaving Islam or that your kids can walk down the street without getting blown up?" you might discover that apostasy is actually a really unimportant part of these peoples' worldview.

"Might" is the operant word here.

[markfiend]

It's a damn sight more likely than your idea that Muslims belong to "a culture that is violently intolerant of anything other than itself".

[sultan2075]

This line of thinking has always troubled me: it seems wrong to assume that what we liberal westerners want is what all peoples want, universally (whether it is a neocon assumption or a contemporary liberal assumption does not matter). It seems to be a projection of our desires onto other peoples. Perhaps some peoples would prefer fidelity to their religions and traditions over western liberal freedoms. Perhaps they see western liberalism as a hostile, even immoral force, bent on reducing their daughters to harlotry and their sons to atheists.

We think politics and freedom are the highest things because (to paraphrase Aristotle) we think there is nothing higher than man. If there is something higher than humanity, than politics (at least in the western understanding) and freedom are not necessarily the highest things.

[markfiend]

Well, if so, it's as much a problem with some versions of Christianity as it is with some versions of Islam. For example, the current opposition to marriage equality in the US seem to me almost entirely driven by people who "would prefer fidelity to their religions and traditions over western liberal freedoms".

[sultan2075]

I will worry about that when they start beheading people and blowing up buildings in the name of traditional marriage.

Besides, I thought you said it was driven not by fidelity to traditions but to an irrational fear and hatred? Or is fidelity to tradition on the face of it irrational?

[EvilBastard]

I will worry about that when they start beheading people and blowing up buildings in the name of traditional marriage.

What about when they start beating people to death for being gay? Is it time to worry then? And who are "they" - muslims? If we're going to tar the adherents of one religion with the same brush then I think we should go arrest Cat Stevens, and the guy who runs the fruit stand around the corner from me - he once sold me an apple that wasn't as crisp as I wanted, it's a small step from that (or Morning Has Broken) to flying planes into my office.

[sultan2075]

I will worry about that when they start beheading people and blowing up buildings in the name of traditional marriage.

What about when they start beating people to death for being gay? Is it time to worry then? And who are "they" - muslims? If we're going to tar the adherents of one religion with the same brush then I think we should go arrest Cat Stevens, and the guy who runs the fruit stand around the corner from me - he once sold me an apple that wasn't as crisp as I wanted, it's a small step from that (or Morning Has Broken) to flying planes into my office.

I was referring to Mark's comments about Christians. Please try to stick to what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said. I've already been accused of harboring "prejudice" simply for asking questions.

[EvilBastard]

I was referring to Mark's comments about Christians. Please try to stick to what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said. I've already been accused of harboring "prejudice" simply for asking questions.

So was I - people who call themselves christians have beaten people to death for being gay; people who call themselves muslims have flown planes into my office; people who call themselves buddhists have killed muslims and burned their businesses in Burma. It seemed from your comment that you held that beheading people in defence of "traditional" marriage was common practice in the islamic world - I apologise if this was the wrong conclusion.
The point I was trying to make was that yes, some people who claim to adhere to a particular religion do unspeakable things. Some catholics murder protestants in northern ireland, citing their religion as justification, and in return some protestants murder catholics for the same reason. Does it follow that we should be concerned about the influx of catholics or protestants into Britain (and I'm really trying to keep this discussion on thread)? Me, I don't think so. Other people may think so. Are there extremists who call themselves muslims, who do terrible things? Sure. I don't know a single muslim that agrees with them, so maybe the people I know aren't really muslims. I don't know a single christian that thinks that sectarian violence in Northern Ireland is a good thing, but perhaps they're not really christians.

Or maybe the people who do these things represent such a tiny minority within a broader group that they could never be reasonably be held to be representative. I'm not sure that it's really justifiable to say "christians don't worry me until they start blowing up buildings." They can, and they do - perhaps not in defence of traditional marriage, but for equally stupid reasons.

So perhaps my question (and yes, it's taken me a long time to get here), how do you pick who to worry about? Because if it's about violent acts in support of stupid causes then I think you ought to be worried about...well, pretty much everyone.

[Nikolas Vitus Lagartija]

Back to UKIP.....despite the British media's continuing obsession with Farage, I note that their percentage share of the vote in the English council elections actually fell compared to the similar elections this time last year. Not a statistic likely to be mentioned much in tomorrow's press, I would suspect.

[lazarus corporation]

Back to UKIP.....despite the British media's continuing obsession with Farage, I note that their percentage share of the vote in the English council elections actually fell compared to the similar elections this time last year. Not a statistic likely to be mentioned much in tomorrow's press, I would suspect.

I submitted my first ever complaint to the BBC tonight about the disproportionate coverage of a party that came a distant 4th in the Council elections: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

(Because normally only Daily Mail readers complain to the BBC, and I thought it was time to even things out a bit)

[Nikolas Vitus Lagartija]

Your complaint is totally justified. Even after today, UKIP has only four hundred UK councillors in total. The Labour Party and the Conservatives have over four thousand each.
UKIP has overall control of no councils at all, and even the most optimistic projection I have seen gives them a likely two MPs at the next General Election. As Jim Royle might say, "fourth political force, my arse".

[lazarus corporation]

Your complaint is totally justified. Even after today, UKIP has only four hundred UK councillors in total. The Labour Party and the Conservatives have over four thousand each.
UKIP has overall control of no councils at all, and even the most optimistic projection I have seen gives them a likely two MPs at the next General Election. As Jim Royle might say, "fourth political force, my arse".

Exactly. And I'd encourage you to make a complaint too (it's just a matter of filling in a few online forms) otherwise the BBC's headline in 2015 will be:

UKIP increase share of vote and nearly get a single MP
(oh, and by the way, Labour won the General Election, but... UKIP!)

[nowayjose]

The point I was trying to make was that yes, some people who claim to adhere to a particular religion do unspeakable things. Some catholics murder protestants in northern ireland, citing their religion as justification, and in return some protestants murder catholics for the same reason. ...

The vast majority of religious terrorist acts are not done in the name of the Pope or Martin Luther. Stop relativising issues. The primary problem today is not Christianity, nor is it Buddhism. Neither Taoism, nor the Hindu faith. Not even the American evangelical idiots are that much of an issue. Not even a tiny fraction of that. Islam is the worst thing to happen since the Aztecs ripped out beating hearts for the rain god. It probably is even worse than that because, at least, the Aztecs didn't aim for world domination. Almost all religious killings today are done in the name of Allah. Islam is (in accordance to Churchill) the most retrograde force in existence today. It must be fought at all fronts. It is the antithesis of enlightenment, the antithesis of humanism, the antithesis of modernity. If you defend what noone sane could possibly defend, you're part of the problem.

[Nikolas Vitus Lagartija]

Exactly. And I'd encourage you to make a complaint too (it's just a matter of filling in a few online forms)

Done. Took less than five minutes.

[EvilBastard]

The vast majority of religious terrorist acts are not done in the name of the Pope or Martin Luther. Stop relativising issues. The primary problem today is not Christianity, nor is it Buddhism. Neither Taoism, nor the Hindu faith. Not even the American evangelical idiots are that much of an issue. Not even a tiny fraction of that. Islam is the worst thing to happen since the Aztecs ripped out beating hearts for the rain god. It probably is even worse than that because, at least, the Aztecs didn't aim for world domination. Almost all religious killings today are done in the name of Allah. Islam is (in accordance to Churchill) the most retrograde force in existence today. It must be fought at all fronts. It is the antithesis of enlightenment, the antithesis of humanism, the antithesis of modernity. If you defend what noone sane could possibly defend, you're part of the problem.

Thanks for this - I really needed a laugh. Let me know when you're tooling up to "fight Islam on all fronts" and I'll come and watch.

[markfiend]

Almost all religious killings today are done in the name of Allah.

[citation needed]

[eastmidswhizzkid]

Your complaint is totally justified. Even after today, UKIP has only four hundred UK councillors in total. The Labour Party and the Conservatives have over four thousand each.
UKIP has overall control of no councils at all, and even the most optimistic projection I have seen gives them a likely two MPs at the next General Election. As Jim Royle might say, "fourth political force, my arse".

similar to the over-exposure granted to the bnp after gaining ONE seat in tower hamlets years ago. (obviously it's good to know these things but i doubt if one council seat gets you a say on what day the bins are emptied, let alone anything else....which is a tad unfair as they were very proud of having learned the days of the week.)

The vast majority of religious terrorist acts are not done in the name of the Pope or Martin Luther. Stop relativising issues. The primary problem today is not Christianity, nor is it Buddhism. Neither Taoism, nor the Hindu faith. Not even the American evangelical idiots are that much of an issue. Not even a tiny fraction of that. Islam is the worst thing to happen since the Aztecs ripped out beating hearts for the rain god. It probably is even worse than that because, at least, the Aztecs didn't aim for world domination. Almost all religious killings today are done in the name of Allah. Islam is (in accordance to Churchill) the most retrograde force in existence today. It must be fought at all fronts. It is the antithesis of enlightenment, the antithesis of humanism, the antithesis of modernity. If you defend what noone sane could possibly defend, you're part of the problem.

if only you'd explained it all so rationally and fairly from the start we needn't have bothered with this thread at all. [/extreme sarcasm]

[sultan2075]

I was referring to Mark's comments about Christians. Please try to stick to what I've actually said rather than what you think I've said. I've already been accused of harboring "prejudice" simply for asking questions.

So was I - people who call themselves christians have beaten people to death for being gay; people who call themselves muslims have flown planes into my office; people who call themselves buddhists have killed muslims and burned their businesses in Burma. It seemed from your comment that you held that beheading people in defence of "traditional" marriage was common practice in the islamic world - I apologise if this was the wrong conclusion.

No, I don't think same-sex marriage is an issue in the Muslim world; to my knowledge no one is beheading anyone in the Islamic world over same-sex marriage. They're mostly just killing and/or imprisoning people for the crime of being homosexual.

In the sultanate of Brunei, starting late next year, the death penalty will be introduced for adultery and homosexual activity; this will be the second phase in the country's transition to sharia law. Iran has been known to execute people for homosexuality (but they're ok with transsexualism, since they view it as a "cure" for homosexuality). In Afghanistan the penalty for homosexuality is death. In Egypt, where they are a bit more liberal, homosexuals are frequently thrown into prison, but I don't think it is officially illegal there. In Malaysia, it is criminalized, but punishments range from a fine to up to 20 years in prison. Mauritania? Death. Nigeria? Prison or death. Pakistan is relatively liberal - they'll give homosexuals a term of prison anywhere from 2 years to life. Saudi Arabia and Sudan? Homosexuality gets you a death sentence. Ditto Yemen.

The point I was trying to make was that yes, some people who claim to adhere to a particular religion do unspeakable things. Some catholics murder protestants in northern ireland, citing their religion as justification, and in return some protestants murder catholics for the same reason. Does it follow that we should be concerned about the influx of catholics or protestants into Britain (and I'm really trying to keep this discussion on thread)? Me, I don't think so. Other people may think so. Are there extremists who call themselves muslims, who do terrible things? Sure. I don't know a single muslim that agrees with them, so maybe the people I know aren't really muslims. I don't know a single christian that thinks that sectarian violence in Northern Ireland is a good thing, but perhaps they're not really christians.

Or maybe the people who do these things represent such a tiny minority within a broader group that they could never be reasonably be held to be representative. I'm not sure that it's really justifiable to say "christians don't worry me until they start blowing up buildings." They can, and they do - perhaps not in defence of traditional marriage, but for equally stupid reasons.

So perhaps my question (and yes, it's taken me a long time to get here), how do you pick who to worry about? Because if it's about violent acts in support of stupid causes then I think you ought to be worried about...well, pretty much everyone.

Why don't I worry about Christian violence, or Sikh violence, or Wiccan violence? Because I don't see stories about Christians, or Sikhs, or Wiccans doing this sort of thing, on this sort of scale, every week (and yes, this is a cherry-picked list. I limited myself to the last week):

Today: Unidentified gunmen blow up home of a poet in Iraq: http://www.ninanews.com/english/News_De ... _VQ=HEIIHL

May 23: More than 30 dead at the hands of Boko Haram, who are also responsible for kidnapping 200 schoolgirls to sell into slavery: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27547214

May 23: At least 3 dead in suicide attack on Shiites in Yemen: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle ... z32dgCmPPC

May 23: In Rawalpindi, gunmen killed a prayer leader from a different sect: http://tribune.com.pk/story/711905/sect ... awalpindi/

May 22: Four civilians, including a woman and child, killed in bombing: http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/mei ... wsbrief-07

May 22: At least 24 Shia muslims killed in three bombings in Baghdad: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27524849

May 22: 31 killed (43 according to Miami Herald) in Urumqi attack: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27502652

May 20: In Jos, Nigeria, 123 people killed by bombs set off by militants: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... government

While you may not like what nowayjose had to say, the vast majority of the religiously motivated violence in the world today is tied to Islam. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorists? I would not say so.

[nowayjose]

Almost all religious killings today are done in the name of Allah.

[citation needed]

Ask and ye shall be given... (the figures are for 2011):

According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,� 1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist� groups, 1,519 by “unknown� factions, 170 by a category described as “other�, and 77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist� groups.

See:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism
and
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=ht ... 2012-08-04

Note that the above figure does not include Shiite attacks.