My affair with the intellectual dark web by Meghan Daum

[Bald1]

he probably can't even read

They're all idiots, really. The mouthbreathing lot of em.

As an aside, I've never met a more brilliant group of people than the WR regulars. Truly humbling to be amongst all these Vizinis.

 

[BEER]

Isn't the IDW just controlled opposition?

The mainstream essentially portrays the IDW as edgy and dangerous in an attempt to build it into the destination for those rebellious and fed up people who stray off the mainstream plantation.

As Chomsky said, you control the debate by narrowing the spectrum of acceptable dialogue, but you allow for vigorous debate within that spectrum so people don't realize the spectrum has been limited.

Ultimately, the IDW is generally within the mainstream spectrum so even if people abandon the mainstream right and left narrative for the IDW, they are still on the plantation but don't realize. And they have been pre-empted from discovering or embracing those dialogues the mainstream truly seeks to prohibit and supress.

100% this.

None of these people are bringing any sort of new or even re-vamped ideas to the table. For the most part, almost all of them (excluding Shapiro) try to label themselves as liberals or libertarians and speak to fairly moderate right wing positions. Some of them (Peterson as the egregious example) try to tie these ideas up in "intellectual language" or philosophy, but the end result is the same: A bunch of cultish "rebellious" kids believe they are on the cutting edge of the social debate, but they're really just being spoon-fed the same old opinions and data.

 

[m25105]

They're all idiots, really. The mouthbreathing lot of em.

As an aside, I've never met a more brilliant group of people than the WR regulars. Truly humbling to be amongst all these Vizinis.

I'll bet you though, that if someone asked you to, you could name at least five war room regulars, that you always get insightful commentary from, either through reading or interaction.

Hell, don't you and @Kafir-kun always go back and forth?

 

[Bald1]

I'll bet you though, that if someone asked you to, you could name at least five war room regulars, that you always get insightful commentary from, either through reading or interaction.

Hell, don't you and @Kafir-kun always go back and forth?

Yeah, Kafir is a good dude. Smart, a smart ass, and is honest in his dealings. We're very differnt people but usually have fruitful conversations, regardless of the faiths we grew up with. Kind of like the intellectual dark web folks. That title is even goofier when typing it out.

Lots of sharp cats in here if you ask me, but that doesn't excuse calling the likes of Harris, Peterson, Shapiro and the Weinsteins simpletons as that's just not true.

 

[m25105]

Yeah, Kafir is a good dude. Smart, a smart ass, and is honest in his dealings. We're very differnt people but usually have fruitful conversations, regardless of the faiths we grew up with. Kind of like the intellectual dark web folks. That title is even goofier when typing it out.

Lots of sharp cats in here if you ask me, but that doesn't excuse calling the likes of Harris, Peterson, Shapiro and the Weinsteins simpletons as that's just not true.

No one is calling Peterson a simpleton, you'll read everyone critical of Shapiro and Harris, are not really trashing Peterson, questioning him at best. And even then recognizing that he's still an intellectual.
Hell, let me ask you why you like Harris? The more critique I read about him the less impressed I get. A Phd through somewhat dubious means, nothing ever produced in his field. Which makes him a scientist how? His awful correspondence with Chomsky? His stupid perfect weapon scenario? And I say it's stupid cause he invents something that doesn't exist, in a place that doesn't exist except for his mind and where everything is controlled by his narrative.

So.. what do you like about him? That he talks bad about Islam?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Hmm, interesting. It certainly alters my view on him personally. It also creates some room for skepticism on his ideas based on the scientific research of other neuroscientists. Thanks for sharing.

To some extent it shouldn't matter I suppose. I mean, if he's making the same argument before and after the neuroscience PhD it doesn't suddenly become stronger afterwards right? The argument should be evaluated on its own terms regardless of the source. But the point is Harris and his fans are the last people who should be claiming authority on the basis of his PhD when its about as flimsy as a basis of academic authority as possible. There are thousands of obscure, no name PhDs with far more academic credentials than him.

Peterson is very legit though. Doesn't mean you have to buy what he's selling but his academic credentials are solid.

 

[Bald1]

No one is calling Peterson a simpleton, you'll read everyone critical of Shapiro and Harris, are not really trashing Peterson, questioning him at best. And even then recognizing that he's still an intellectual.
Hell, let me ask you why you like Harris? The more critique I read about him the less impressed I get. A Phd through somewhat dubious means, nothing ever produced in his field. Which makes him a scientist how? His awful corresponding with Chomsky? His stupid perfect weapon scenario? And I say it's stupid cause he points something that doesn't exist in a place that doesn't exist either, except for his mind and controlled by his narrative.

So.. what do you like about him? That he talks bad about Islam?

Uhh, I never said I like Harris. I've been consistent in saying he bores me. That doesn't mean he's not highly intelligent. I'm more likely to listen to Peterson and the Weinsteins and they're not known for their anti Islam views.

There's more to me than criticism of Islam. For example I find PC culture and far left progressive dogma to be just as bad, if with way fewer cult members. Any intolerant, supremacist and authoritarian belief system will get me pissy. Fifteen years ago it was the right wing, hypocritical moral brigade. Five hundred years ago it would have been Christianity, and I still think the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. Yet that religion as a whole has tried to modernize while Islam is regressing.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

that title

Nothing says " i like the smell of my owm farts" like that title.

 

[m25105]

Uhh, I never said I like Harris. I've been consistent in saying he bores me. That doesn't mean he's not highly intelligent. I'm more likely to listen to Peterson and the Weinsteins and they're not known for their anti Islam views.

There's more to me than criticism of Islam. For example I find PC culture and far left progressive dogma to be just as bad, if with way fewer cult members. Any intolerant, supremacist and authoritarian belief system will get me pissy. Fifteen years ago it was the right wing, hypocritical moral brigade. Five hundred years ago it would have been Christianity, and I still think the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. Yet that religion as a whole has tried to modernize while Islam is regressing.

So why not promote progressive Islam instead of bombing them? I know for a fact you know what a Quranist is, cause we've talked about this in a previous thread. So knowing this, and using logic and reason, can one promote an Islam that doesn't conflict with Quran, and use it to explain to Muslims why they're so backwards, with the argument that "because you don't listen to the word of God". There's already numerous such organisations online, and I see a steady growth of it. Has Harris ever under any of his critique of Islam ever said that? Most I've read is that the man just says we should be bombed, that our intentions are bad, and that we're a death cult. The last part is highly insulting and fucking retarded, and if Harris really said that, you can throw away any intellectualism associated with him and put him in the "He's a kinda smart guy, but nothing really special. Not really worth reading." category.

About the PC culture that so many here complains about. Is your tax money going to any of that, do you see an actual change that impacts you? Is this because of that thing they did in Canada about pronouns or something? Are you telling me you can't say what you want to say, because someone gets offended? People say offensive things all day in here. You can debate things easily if you do it reasonably, and I kinda respect Peterson for this, I might not be a fan of him (but he's no idiot, and he seems to come from conviction of what is right). If you debate things reasonably, I'm sure who ever is acting as the main speaker of.. let's call it SJW intellectualism (I guess the term is Post-Modernism? Not sure, if someone can correct me I'd appreciate it.) and argue reasonable with that person in a forum with each side able to present their case and explain and answer questions or arguments, even if one can't change THEIR mind, one can still hope that public will draw a new conclusion, if they had not already decided on where they stood about it, and thus combat something that's, let us be very honest, is extremely trivial in every day life. Bankers are scamming people left and right, there's going to be another market crash and people are concerned about the rights of what pronouns should be used?

 

[Bald1]

So why not promote progressive Islam instead of bombing them? I know for a fact you know what a Quranist is, cause we've talked about this in a previous thread. So knowing this, and using logic and reason, can one promote an Islam that doesn't conflict with Quran, and use it to explain to Muslims why they're so backwards, with the argument that "because you don't listen to the word of God". There's already numerous such organisations online, and I see a steady growth of it. Has Harris ever under any of his critique of Islam ever said that? Most I've read is that the man just says we should be bombed, that our intentions are bad, and that we're a death cult. The last part is highly insulting and fucking retarded, and if Harris really said that, you can throw away any intellectualism associated with him and put him in the "He's a kinda smart guy, but nothing really special. Not really worth reading." category.

About the PC culture that so many here complains about. Is your tax money going to any of that, do you see an actual change that impacts you? Is this because of that thing they did in Canada about pronouns or something? Are you telling me you can't say what you want to say, because someone gets offended? People say offensive things all day in here. You can debate things easily if you do it reasonably, and I kinda respect Peterson for this, I might be a fan of him (but he's no idiot, and he seems to come from conviction of what is right). If you debate things reasonably, I'm sure who ever is acting as the main speaker of.. let's call it SJW intellectualism (I guess the term is Post-Modernism? Not sure, if someone can correct me I'd appreciate it.) and argue reasonable with that person in a forum with each side able to present their case and explain and answer questions or arguments, even if one can't change THEIR mind, one can still hope that public will draw a new conclusion, if they had not already decided on where they stood about it, and thus combat something that's, let us be very honest, is extremely trivial in every day life. Bankers are scamming people left and right, there's going to be another market crash and people are concerned about the rights of what pronouns should be used?

Incoming stream of thought verbal diarrhea...

I'd prefer (for what it's worth) if there were more Quranists and fewer abrogationists. (I might have just made up that word.) That would lead to a more concise message in the vein of New over Old Testament Christianity.

I don't support meddling in the middle east. I also don't support allowing migrants to enter the west. If I was the Grand Pubah of our planet I'd take a Star Trek approach and let them sort it all out, sink or swim style, without interference. At the same time I'm pro immigration from all peoples as long as it's done in a responsible manner. Along the lines of even dispersal amongs native populations, mandatory cultural norms to be met, and check your old country luggage at the door please.

I don't know if a moderate Islam is a possible thing to achieve, but do know there are moderate Muslims. Majid Nawaz being one of them. Reason I bring him up is because he's good buddies with Harris. So, much like most Christians who ignore irrelevant bits of the bible, there are many Muslims who do the same with the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. And I agree, they (you? Kafir and most muslims I know) should have our support. The resistance to moderation, however, is an internal one as far as I can see. I can cheer you on in your efforts, but that support pales in comparison to resistance from within your own community. I've seen it first hand.

As for PC culture? Censorship, whether self, or enforced by an authority is counterproductive to honest and worthwhile exchange of ideas. The Soviets knew this and exploited it for their own benefits. The same goes for all authoritarian ideas and regimes.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So why not promote progressive Islam instead of bombing them? I know for a fact you know what a Quranist is, cause we've talked about this in a previous thread. So knowing this, and using logic and reason, can one promote an Islam that doesn't conflict with Quran, and use it to explain to Muslims why they're so backwards, with the argument that "because you don't listen to the word of God". There's already numerous such organisations online, and I see a steady growth of it. Has Harris ever under any of his critique of Islam ever said that? Most I've read is that the man just says we should be bombed, that our intentions are bad, and that we're a death cult. The last part is highly insulting and fucking retarded, and if Harris really said that, you can throw away any intellectualism associated with him and put him in the "He's a kinda smart guy, but nothing really special. Not really worth reading." category.

About the PC culture that so many here complains about. Is your tax money going to any of that, do you see an actual change that impacts you? Is this because of that thing they did in Canada about pronouns or something? Are you telling me you can't say what you want to say, because someone gets offended? People say offensive things all day in here. You can debate things easily if you do it reasonably, and I kinda respect Peterson for this, I might be a fan of him (but he's no idiot, and he seems to come from conviction of what is right). If you debate things reasonably, I'm sure who ever is acting as the main speaker of.. let's call it SJW intellectualism (I guess the term is Post-Modernism? Not sure, if someone can correct me I'd appreciate it.) and argue reasonable with that person in a forum with each side able to present their case and explain and answer questions or arguments, even if one can't change THEIR mind, one can still hope that public will draw a new conclusion, if they had not already decided on where they stood about it, and thus combat something that's, let us be very honest, is extremely trivial in every day life. Bankers are scamming people left and right, there's going to be another market crash and people are concerned about the rights of what pronouns should be used?

Harris' point about Islam being a death cult makes perfect sense from his perspective as a materialist. He sees human flourishing as the most important goal and metric. If Paradise exists then its obviously the pinnacle of human flourishing and therefore the most rational thing to do is to expedite ones' entrance to Paradise as quickly as possible and according to the religion the fastest way to get there is through martyrdom.

But Muslims aren't materialists like Harris, or at least they're not supposed to be. For them Islam isn't about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its also about establishing justice in this world within social relations. Some Muslims may indeed see things the way Harris does but I don't think that's the intended or even natural conclusion of adhering to the religion.

Incoming stream of thought verbal diarrhea...

I'd prefer (for what it's worth) if there were more Quranists and fewer abrogationists. (I might have just made up that word.) That would lead to a more concise message in the vein of New over Old Testament Christianity.

I don't support meddling in the middle east. I also don't support allowing migrants to enter the west. If I was the Grand Pubah of our planet I'd take a Star Trek approach and let them sort it all out, sink or swim style, without interference. At the same time I'm pro immigration from all peoples as long as it's done in a responsible manner. Along the lines of even dispersal amongs native populations, mandatory cultural norms to be met, and check your old country luggage at the door please.

I don't know if a moderate Islam is a possible thing to achieve, but do know there are moderate Muslims. Majid Nawaz being one of them. Reason I bring him up is because he's good buddies with Harris. So, much like most Christians who ignore irrelevant bits of the bible, there are many Muslims who do the same with the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. And I agree, they (you? Kafir and most muslims I know) should have our support. The resistance to moderation, however, is an internal one as far as I can see. I can cheer you on in your efforts, but that support pales in comparison to resistance from within your own community. I've seen it first hand.

As for PC culture? Censorship, whether self, or enforced by an authority is counterproductive to honest and worthwhile exchange of ideas. The Soviets knew this and exploited it for their own benefits. The same goes for all authoritarian ideas and regimes.

What is moderate Islam anyway? I often see Muslims who drink or eat pork held up as exemplars of moderation and integration but to the Muslim community that is far from anything of the sort. To what extent is it wrong for Muslims to live out their socially conservative values? Is it wrong for Muslims to abstain for drinking or haram meats? Is it wrong for Muslim women to refuse to shake the hand of a man or to cover her hair or to abstain from fornication?

To what extent is it okay for Muslim societies to assert Islamic values in the public sphere? You call yourself a secularist but at the same time defend the right of Hungary to assert itself as a Christian society, is it okay for Egypt or Algeria or Pakistan to do the same with their predominant religion? Erdogan allows female civil servants and university students the right to wear the hijab and the women of his party dare to wear the headscarf in public and people say its creeping theocracy, is that really fair(setting aside his obvious issues with authoritarianism which are often conflated in a misleading way with his supposedly theocratic policies)

 

[dontsnitch]

Harris' point about Islam being a death cult makes perfect sense from his perspective as a materialist. He sees human flourishing as the most important goal and metric. If Paradise exists then its obviously the pinnacle of human flourishing and therefore the most rational thing to do is to expedite ones' entrance to Paradise as quickly as possible and according to the religion the fastest way to get there is through martyrdom.

But Muslims aren't materialists like Harris, or at least they're not supposed to be. For them Islam isn't about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its also about establishing justice in this world within social relations. Some Muslims may indeed see things the way Harris does but I don't think that's the intended or even natural conclusion of adhering to the religion.

What is moderate Islam anyway? I often see Muslims who drink or eat pork held up as exemplars of moderation and integration but to the Muslim community that is far from anything of the sort. To what extent is it wrong for Muslims to live out their socially conservative values? Is it wrong for Muslims to abstain for drinking or haram meats? Is it wrong for Muslim women to refuse to shake the hand of a man or to cover her hair or to abstain from fornication?

To what extent is it okay for Muslim societies to assert Islamic values in the public sphere? You call yourself a secularist but at the same time defend the right of Hungary to assert itself as a Christian society, is it okay for Egypt or Algeria or Pakistan to do the same with their predominant religion? Erdogan allows female civil servants and university students the right to wear the hijab and the women of his party dare to wear the headscarf in public and people say its creeping theocracy, is that really fair(setting aside his obvious issues with authoritarianism which are often conflated in a misleading way with his supposedly theocratic policies)

I always considered Christians who do not agree with the separation of church and state to not be moderate. Any man who does not want to impose his religious views on other people is fine by me.

 

[m25105]

Harris' point about Islam being a death cult makes perfect sense from his perspective as a materialist. He sees human flourishing as the most important goal and metric. If Paradise exists then its obviously the pinnacle of human flourishing and therefore the most rational thing to do is to expedite ones' entrance to Paradise as quickly as possible and according to the religion the fastest way to get there is through martyrdom.

But Muslims aren't materialists like Harris, or at least they're not supposed to be. For them Islam isn't about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its also about establishing justice in this world within social relations. Some Muslims may indeed see things the way Harris does but I don't think that's the intended or even natural conclusion of adhering to the religion.

What is moderate Islam anyway? I often see Muslims who drink or eat pork held up as exemplars of moderation and integration but to the Muslim community that is far from anything of the sort. To what extent is it wrong for Muslims to live out their socially conservative values? Is it wrong for Muslims to abstain for drinking or haram meats? Is it wrong for Muslim women to refuse to shake the hand of a man or to cover her hair or to abstain from fornication?

To what extent is it okay for Muslim societies to assert Islamic values in the public sphere? You call yourself a secularist but at the same time defend the right of Hungary to assert itself as a Christian society, is it okay for Egypt or Algeria or Pakistan to do the same with their predominant religion? Erdogan allows female civil servants and university students the right to wear the hijab and the women of his party dare to wear the headscarf in public and people say its creeping theocracy, is that really fair(setting aside his obvious issues with authoritarianism which are often conflated in a misleading way with his supposedly theocratic policies)

If Islam was a death cult, they'd be throwing themselves as living bombs in a number that would put everything else to shame in terms of loss of life in a conflict, against the invading forces. Harris is a fool, and I think you're really giving him (and I know you don't think much of him) far too much credit in trying to excuse him. You don't always have to play devil's advocate you know.

If a modern "Muslim" eats pork, he's disobeying the commands of God. It's black and white in the Quran. Not from some Hadith, or the Sunnah. If you meet one like this, ask him what he thinks about it. Drinking alcohol is different. Alcohol is dangerous in excess and if you drink so much you can't drive or act like an idiot, then that's clear excess.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I always considered Christians who do not agree with the separation of church and state to not be moderate. Any man who does not want to impose his religious views on other people is fine by me.

Is a Muslim parent who raises their child within their religion imposing their beliefs to an egregious extent in your view? How about Muslims who ostracize Muslims that violate basic tenants of their religion(consuming alcohol and haram food, fornicating etc)? Don't they have the right to raise their children as they see fit or associate and not associate with whomever they see fit? How about a Muslim society that wants to restrict public consumption of alcohol?

If Islam was a death cult, they'd be throwing themselves as living bombs in a number that would put everything else to shame in terms of loss of life in a conflict, against the invading forces. Harris is a fool, and I think you're really giving him (and I know you don't think much of him) far too much credit in trying to excuse him. You don't always have to play devil's advocate you know.

Well that's what I'm saying, Muslims themselves don't have the same set of materialist assumptions that Harris does which is why his view of the religion and the natural conclusions to draw from the texts aren't really inline with what Muslims themselves see in their religion. They don't care about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its so much more than that. But Harris doesn't see that, for him "human flourishing"(whatever the fuck that even is) is all that matters.

And yes I do have to play Devil's advocate, its just so fun.

If a modern "Muslim" eats pork, he's disobeying the commands of God. It's black and white in the Quran. Not from some Hadith, or the Sunnah. If you meet one like this, ask him what he thinks about it. Drinking alcohol is different. Alcohol is dangerous in excess and if you drink so much you can't drive or act like an idiot, then that's clear excess.

Well yeah that's my point, when you point to your buddy Mo who drinks and eats pork as an example of a "good Muslim" you're basically saying you don't Muslims to actually be Muslims. So of course Muslims who take their religion seriously aren't going to take that argument seriously. Which is why I asked him to what extent is it okay for Muslims to live out their socially conservative views.

 

[jeffk]

m25105 I think you have an incorrect take on Harris and Islam. He does want to promote and give a bigger voice to progressive Muslims. He often points out that progressive Muslims are the biggest victims of extremists. While I think he would prefer Muslims to leave the religion completely, he knows that isn't going to happen so he hopes that a progressive Islam does spread. He knows he isn't going to be able to change anything and knows that things have to change from within.

He didn't have much of an opinion leading up to the Iraq war. He understands that bombing people in Iraq would make people hate the US.

He doesn't want to make Islam illegal or randomly bomb Muslims.

He is against things in Islam that are inconsistent with liberal democracy. And he will say x percent of Muslims believe people should be punished for blasphemy. Then he is speaking to that x percent who think blasphemy should be punished. He doesn't have a problem or supports Muslims who think blasphemy shouldn't be a crime.

Harris would say we cannot have blasphemy laws in a liberal society because free speech is a pillar of a liberal democracy. Same thing with equality of opportunity for women and fair treatment of gays. And people should be able to leave the religion without any consequence since people should have freedom of conscience.

Ultimately he hopes all religions will be taken as seriously as astrology.

 

[Bald1]

Harris' point about Islam being a death cult makes perfect sense from his perspective as a materialist. He sees human flourishing as the most important goal and metric. If Paradise exists then its obviously the pinnacle of human flourishing and therefore the most rational thing to do is to expedite ones' entrance to Paradise as quickly as possible and according to the religion the fastest way to get there is through martyrdom.

But Muslims aren't materialists like Harris, or at least they're not supposed to be. For them Islam isn't about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its also about establishing justice in this world within social relations. Some Muslims may indeed see things the way Harris does but I don't think that's the intended or even natural conclusion of adhering to the religion.

What is moderate Islam anyway? I often see Muslims who drink or eat pork held up as exemplars of moderation and integration but to the Muslim community that is far from anything of the sort. To what extent is it wrong for Muslims to live out their socially conservative values? Is it wrong for Muslims to abstain for drinking or haram meats? Is it wrong for Muslim women to refuse to shake the hand of a man or to cover her hair or to abstain from fornication?

To what extent is it okay for Muslim societies to assert Islamic values in the public sphere? You call yourself a secularist but at the same time defend the right of Hungary to assert itself as a Christian society, is it okay for Egypt or Algeria or Pakistan to do the same with their predominant religion? Erdogan allows female civil servants and university students the right to wear the hijab and the women of his party dare to wear the headscarf in public and people say its creeping theocracy, is that really fair(setting aside his obvious issues with authoritarianism which are often conflated in a misleading way with his supposedly theocratic policies)

I defend Hungarys right to assert itself as a Hungarian society. If they think that means it's rooted in Christian values then they have my blessing. I also support SA to assert themselves as a SA society. I support Canadas diverse society model as well.

What I oppose is outsiders changing other cultures. That means foreign meddling of the regime changing kind or of the funding wahabi mosque kind.

What is moderate Islam? The same as moderate *insert ideology*. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others. Sorry pal, but Islam has a real problem with that basic freedom.

Muslims who want to live in a society rooted in Islamic values can live in Islamic countries and enjoy all the benefits such societies offer them. There are more than 50 to choose from. Used to be fewer, but Muslims tend to force their beliefs on populations wherever they roam. What is the benefit of continuing such a thing? Global cultural diversity should be cherished and preserved imo. Besides, why is diversification a one way valve as far as good ideas go? I couldn't go to Mecca and try to run a secularization movement. They would rightly lop off my head.

 

[m25105]

Is a Muslim parent who raises their child within their religion imposing their beliefs to an egregious extent in your view? How about Muslims who ostracize Muslims that violate basic tenants of their religion(consuming alcohol and haram food, fornicating etc)? Don't they have the right to raise their children as they see fit or associate and not associate with whomever they see fit? How about a Muslim society that wants to restrict public consumption of alcohol?

Well that's what I'm saying, Muslims themselves don't have the same set of materialist assumptions that Harris does which is why his view of the religion and the natural conclusions to draw from the texts aren't really inline with what Muslims themselves see in their religion. They don't care about getting to Paradise as fast as possible, its so much more than that. But Harris doesn't see that, for him "human flourishing"(whatever the fuck that even is) is all that matters.

And yes I do have to play Devil's advocate, its just so fun.

Well yeah that's my point, when you point to your buddy Mo who drinks and eats pork as an example of a "good Muslim" you're basically saying you don't Muslims to actually be Muslims. So of course Muslims who take their religion seriously aren't going to take that argument seriously. Which is why I asked him to what extent is it okay for Muslims to live out their socially conservative views.

No, they're just raising their child with morals that is tied to the faith they believe in. If you live in a society that follows certain norms and you break them, repeatedly, then why should one feel sorry for the offender? As long as he's not met with physical or financial punishment, I don't really mind if others do it. Personally, I'd just minimize my interactions with that person, and if he's close to me, maybe invite him over for tea or something and speak about why he's doing what he's doing (sinning). However it also depends on the severity, one who charges interest, causes strife, and what not. Well, I don't think I'd shed any tears if that person got shunned. I'd probably not even talk to the person myself either, nor greet him unless the person comes to me in good faith, showing he/she has changed.

However it really depends on the society and the cultural norm. Since I live in Denmark, I have adapted to the Danish norms and values, and thus parents can raise their child as they see fit (with in reason of course, raising a child to think murdering others, and tolerating it, would be absurd) without anyone pushing their morality on them. But since you asked about a Muslim society. I do think for example, displaying public drinking should be fined, since you're setting a bad example. Drinking a beer or two in your own residence though, is perfectly fine. A Muslim society is a just and fair society, and I'd recommend you read "The Natural Republic" to get a good template what progressive Muslims wishes a Muslim society should do.

 

[dontsnitch]

Is a Muslim parent who raises their child within their religion imposing their beliefs to an egregious extent in your view? How about Muslims who ostracize Muslims that violate basic tenants of their religion(consuming alcohol and haram food, fornicating etc)? Don't they have the right to raise their children as they see fit or associate and not associate with whomever they see fit? How about a Muslim society that wants to restrict public consumption of alcohol?

I don't consider these to be significantly problematic, with the exception of restricting alcohol consumption, I would need more context before weighing in.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I defend Hungarys right to assert itself as a Hungarian society. If they think that means it's rooted in Christian values then they have my blessing. I also support SA to assert themselves as a SA society. I support Canadas diverse society model as well.

What I oppose is outsiders changing other cultures. That means foreign meddling of the regime changing kind or of the funding wahabi mosque kind.

What is moderate Islam? The same as moderate *insert ideology*. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others. Sorry pal, but Islam has a real problem with that basic freedom.

Muslims who want to live in a society rooted in Islamic values can live in Islamic countries and enjoy all the benefits such societies offer them. There are more than 50 to choose from. Used to be fewer, but Muslims tend to force their beliefs on populations wherever they roam. What is the benefit of continuing such a thing? Global cultural diversity should be cherished and preserved imo. Besides, why is diversification a one way valve as far as good ideas go? I couldn't go to Mecca and try to run a secularization movement. They would rightly lop off my head.

But cultures have always been changed by outsiders. The US used to be seen as an Anglo-Protestant nation, now its seen as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Was it wrong for the non-Anglo-Saxon cultures like the Irish and Italians to assert themselves and dilute the Anglo-Saxon element in US society? Was it wrong for Jews and Catholics to assert themselves and change America from a Protestant nation to a "Judeo-Christian" one?

I don't consider these to be significantly problematic, with the exception of restricting alcohol consumption, I would need more context before weighing in.

Let's say a hypothetical country passed my ideal alcohol laws; public consumption is completely restricted. No bars and no alcohol served at restaurants and certainly no consumption allowed on the street(already illegal in parts of the Western world btw). Also all public ads for alcohol are banned. But there are liquor stores, which exist the way adult video stores exist in America today. Always in a seedy corner with no windows and people feel a little embarrassed going in due to social stigma against it. But you are allowed to buy alcohol there and take it back to your residence and consume it there to your heart's content.

 

[dontsnitch]

But cultures have always been changed by outsiders. The US used to be seen as an Anglo-Protestant nation, now its seen as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Was it wrong for the non-Anglo-Saxon cultures like the Irish and Italians to assert themselves and dilute the Anglo-Saxon element in US society? Was it wrong for Jews and Catholics to assert themselves and change America from a Protestant nation to a "Judeo-Christian" one?

Let's say a hypothetical country passed my ideal alcohol laws; public consumption is completely restricted. No bars and no alcohol served at restaurants and certainly no consumption allowed on the street(already illegal in parts of the Western world btw). Also all public ads for alcohol are banned. But there are liquor stores, which exist the way adult video stores exist in America today. Always in a seedy corner with no windows and people feel a little embarrassed going in due to social stigma against it. But you are allowed to buy alcohol there and take it back to your residence and consume it there to your heart's content.

Not allowing restaurants to serve alcohol is too far for me. Imagine caring what other people in the restaurant are eating and drinking.