Father, sons drowned teen daughter over her ‘Western lifestyle’

[ThatRobGuy]

I never said "western".

Either way, we were talking about honor killings, not this. There are hoards of Christians in the US right now who praise strict rules like that and would implement them in the blink of an eye if given the chance. Here's a sitting congressman who did just that:

GOP Congressman Traveled to Uganda to Give Speech Praising Anti-LGBTQ Death Penalty Law

The GOP lawmaker urged Ugandan leaders to "stand firm" against international opposition and condemnation of the law.

truthout.org

Those American Christians aren't better; they're just held in check by the rest of society.

And why does our society have have the kind of provisions that hold guys like that "in check"?

I'll argue that there are not "hoards of Christians in the US that praise strict rules like that" in comparison to our overall population size.

The fact that one has to find a random congressmen from Michigan that most people literally have never heard of to invoke a myth of equivalency is telling.

So because 1 congressmen out of 435 supports a particularly draconian version of LGBTQ discrimination means that "it's a wash"?

If you had a scenario where a third of republican congressmen, a quarter of the senate republicans, most of the SCOTUS, and the president all praised Uganda's treatment of gays and "sexual infidels", then you may have something remotely approaching what's the "status quo" in Islamic theocracies (to enough of a degree that it's even worth bringing up as a point of comparison)

Can we just cut out the silliness here? lol

In terms of religious ideologies that cut against the rights of the groups that progressives claim to want to protect, there's one that stands head & shoulders above all of the rest in terms of violations.

Trying to create false equivalencies or contrived "every religions does it" talking points doesn't change reality.

Through an Islamic political lens, people like Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis would be considered "radical progressives" by their standards.

Why can we not acknowledge that and just admit that certain cultures are superior to others?

When the worst of one culture is lightyears better than the best of another culture (by consistent standards), that should mean something, yes?

DeSantis got maligned for banning books in Jr. high schools that visually depicted minors masturbating into a Mountain Dew bottle... meanwhile, in Islamic countries, replacing the death penalty for gays with prison sentences gets a standing ovation in the name of "progress".

#ClownWorld

 

[Valletta]

Not so long the very christian nation of Ireland basically enslaved women who got pregnant out of wedlock and let their children die from neglect.

Less enlightened societies tend to treat their vulnerable members badly. Nothing new.

Please no hoaxes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay, so if that stuff was going on at that level in Arkansas (it's obviously not, a woman or gay person wanting better treatment would obviously be better off in Little Rock than they would in Tehran), you're saying you wouldn't have any issues with frankly and bluntly identifying the cause and effect.

I don't see how "it would be worse in Tehran" is an appropriate response to your hypothetical about Arkansas.

So why do so many have an issue issuing the same blunt critiques against Islam and instead opt to shill for them and offer "other religions have extremists too" defenses to deflect?

Obviously there's the cynical theory, which is "if a religion is primarily comprised of people with more pigment, we need to defend them against bad racist white people at all costs", but to give the benefit of the doubt, do you have any alternate theories on that?

Your analogy is a perfect match, but you don't seem to get why. Even if the local offenders are invoking their religion for their atrocities, that it doesn't occur throughout the religion indicates that it is not strictly a problem with the religion. (OTOH, there is a strong correlation between the SBC and slavery and segregation. It's "weird" how they happen in the same places...)

Sam Harris said it pretty well "My fellow liberals have failed us on the topic of theocracy, they'll only criticize white theocracy. They'll still get agitated about an abortion clinic bombing that happened in 1994, but when you point out that the Muslim world is lacking even more in this area, they'll accuse you of Islamaphobia"

I think Islamophobia is a silly term for bigotry. But talking about Islamic theocracy when the subject is Christian theocracy (not sure what "white theocracy" is) is ... what-about-ism. (or vice versa)

 

[iluvatar5150]

And why does our society have have the kind of provisions that hold guys like that "in check"?

Because we have a bunch of rules built on centuries of mostly secular philosophy. It wasn't Christianity that spawned our pluralism and egalitarianism.

I'll argue that there are not "hoards of Christians in the US that praise strict rules like that" in comparison to our overall population size.

The fact that one has to find a random congressmen from Michigan that most people literally have never heard of to invoke a myth of equivalency is telling.

So because 1 congressmen out of 435 supports a particularly draconian version of LGBTQ discrimination means that "it's a wash"?

Politely: You have no idea what you're talking about.

I seem to recall having had similar arguments with you in the past (though it's possible I'm mixing you up with a different post who hasn't been around in a while). You didn't grow up fundamentalist. You didn't live in an illiberal religious environment. I did. And these folks are way more numerous and way more crazy than you think. Until recently, they weren't making a lot of headlines, but they're starting to now that these folks have essentially taken over the Republican party. It's similar to various online subcultures, where if you're not in them, you're unlikely to ever hear about them. How many people knew what qanon was before the pizzagate shooting? How many had ever heard the term "groyper" prior to Charlie Kirk's murder?

Likewise, how many people had heard of Dominionism or the New Apostolic Reformation prior to Jan 6?

If you had a scenario where a third of republican congressmen, a quarter of the senate republicans, most of the SCOTUS, and the president all praised Uganda's treatment of gays and "sexual infidels", then you may have something remotely approaching what's the "status quo" in Islamic theocracies (to enough of a degree that it's even worth bringing up as a point of comparison)

I didn't say we're equal in number. I said that there are a lot of Christians who would go that way if given the chance. And there are. Maybe they wouldn't jump to executing gays right away, but give it a couple generations and who knows.

Heck, how many conservative states have tried to make it easier to run over protestors? Last I recall, it was several. Greg Abbot couldn't wait to pardon that guy in Austin who blew a red light, drove into a crowd, and essentially instigated his own "self-defense" encounter. A current, active staff member of this board has argued to me that James Alex Fields was defending himself when he ran down Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. How far down the slippery slope is it from turning a blind eye towards political violence to executing people you believe are committing abominations against God? It doesn't look that far from where I sit.

Why can we not acknowledge that and just admit that certain cultures are superior to others?

Because I don't think the cultures you're putting at the top are as virtuous as you think they are. They're just as power-hungry and hypocritical as anybody else. Put them in a failed state with a bunch of guns and in a couple decades, they'll turn out just as bad.

To be clear - I'm not excusing anything that happens in Muslim countries. The context here was not a general survey of the qualities of various world cultures; it was the OP's constant drum beating about how bad and evil Muslims are. I engaged in whataboutism because I wanted to push back specifically against his ongoing campaign of propagating of anti-Muslim bigotry.

 

[Nithavela]

Please no hoaxes.

I don't know if you're thinking of Canada and the supposed mass graves of native american babies, but the atrocities of the mother and baby homes in Ireland are well documented and acknowledged by the protestant church of ireland and the irish government.

And my point is not that the christian religion caused this alone. This was a phenomenon specific to ireland of that time period. The point is that culture can shape actions against vulnerable people, not just religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A fabulous post. I didn't grow up in the space that much of this stuff arose, but I have been following the far right in the US since the 2016 election. You conclusion is absolutely correct. I offer one small correction.

And these folks are way more numerous and way more crazy than you think. Until recently, they weren't making a lot of headlines, but they're starting to now that these folks have essentially taken over the Republican party.

The "normie" conservative's last realistic chance to wrest the GOP back from Trump/MAGA was the release of the Access Hollywood tape and the week that followed. As for the party itself, it was largely captured by the MAGA movement by the end of Trump's first term.

It's similar to various online subcultures, where if you're not in them, you're unlikely to ever hear about them. How many people knew what qanon was before the pizzagate shooting?

Qanon is a successor to pizzagate. It starts about a year after the Comet Pizza shooting when an anonymous 4chan posting from a "Q clearance patriot" promised a resolution to the fevered conspiracies of the pizzagate community.

How many had ever heard the term "groyper" prior to Charlie Kirk's murder?

Spotted their flags live in the crowd attacking the Capitol.

Likewise, how many people had heard of Dominionism or the New Apostolic Reformation prior to Jan 6?

And the Boogaloo bois, 3%ers, Oathkeepers, proud boys, New Tang Dynasty, Rod of Iron, 1st amendment preatorians, jericho march, et al.

Because I don't think the cultures you're putting at the top are as virtuous as you think they are. They're just as power-hungry and hypocritical as anybody else. Put them in a failed state with a bunch of guns and in a couple decades, they'll turn out just as bad.

exactly

 

[Valletta]

I don't know if you're thinking of Canada and the supposed mass graves of native american babies, but the atrocities of the mother and baby homes in Ireland are well documented and acknowledged by the protestant church of ireland and the irish government.

You're mistaken. The mass grave story of 400 or so and the septic tank story were hoaxes. Realize that both Al Jazeera and the New York Times have an anti-Judeo/Christian bent and sadly are not above publishing fake religious tales.

 

[Nithavela]

You're mistaken. The mass grave story of 400 or so and the septic tank story were hoaxes. Realize that both Al Jazeera and the New York Times have an anti-Judeo/Christian bent and sadly are not above publishing fake religious tales.

I assume you have a reason for me to believe that except genetic fallacies?

 

[Valletta]

I assume you have a reason for me to believe that except genetic fallacies?

The stories were debunked long ago.

 

[Nithavela]

The stories were debunked long ago.

Nothing then. Thought so.

Moving on.

 

[DaisyDay]

If that's true, then it's even more telling.

After 200+ years of institutional power and their religion being on a social pedestal, our most "patriarchal" conservative Christian political power brokers look like radical feminists in comparison to what happens after 5 years of Islam controlling a country.

Oh they really don't.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh they really don't.

Really? Can you think of any high profile senators or house reps that wouldn't be considered "progressive" by Iranian standards on those kinds of issues?

 

[DaisyDay]

Realize that both Al Jazeera and the New York Times have an anti-Judeo/Christian bent and sadly are not above publishing fake religious tales.

Lols, the NYTimes are very pro-Jewish.

 

[BCP1928]

Okay, so if that stuff was going on at that level in Arkansas (it's obviously not, a woman or gay person wanting better treatment would obviously be better off in Little Rock than they would in Tehran), you're saying you wouldn't have any issues with frankly and bluntly identifying the cause and effect.

So why do so many have an issue issuing the same blunt critiques against Islam and instead opt to shill for them and offer "other religions have extremists too" defenses to deflect?

Obviously there's the cynical theory, which is "if a religion is primarily comprised of people with more pigment, we need to defend them against bad racist white people at all costs", but to give the benefit of the doubt, do you have any alternate theories on that?

Sam Harris said it pretty well "My fellow liberals have failed us on the topic of theocracy, they'll only criticize white theocracy. They'll still get agitated about an abortion clinic bombing that happened in 1994, but when you point out that the Muslim world is lacking even more in this area, they'll accuse you of Islamaphobia"

If it had been black people from Africa who had settled America and brought in white slaves from Norway to do their field work the we could still be having this conversation but the colors would be reversed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Really? Can you think of any high profile senators or house reps that wouldn't be considered "progressive" by Iranian standards on those kinds of issues?

Lookit those goalpost move! We've gone from"our most "patriarchal" conservative Christian political power brokers" to "high profile senators or house reps"!

What do you know of Iranian standards? The society as a whole is fairly progressive, but the Ayatollah situation is tragic for men, women and children.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I seem to recall having had similar arguments with you in the past (though it's possible I'm mixing you up with a different post who hasn't been around in a while). You didn't grow up fundamentalist. You didn't live in an illiberal religious environment. I did. And these folks are way more numerous and way more crazy than you think. Until recently, they weren't making a lot of headlines, but they're starting to now that these folks have essentially taken over the Republican party. It's similar to various online subcultures, where if you're not in them, you're unlikely to ever hear about them. How many people knew what qanon was before the pizzagate shooting? How many had ever heard the term "groyper" prior to Charlie Kirk's murder?

I grew up in a Southern Baptist household.

My mom's family was Southern Baptist, and my dad's side was Irish Catholic.

Heck, how many conservative states have tried to make it easier to run over protestors? Last I recall, it was several. Greg Abbot couldn't wait to pardon that guy in Austin who blew a red light, drove into a crowd, and essentially instigated his own "self-defense" encounter. A current, active staff member of this board has argued to me that James Alex Fields was defending himself when he ran down Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. How far down the slippery slope is it from turning a blind eye towards political violence to executing people you believe are committing abominations against God? It doesn't look that far from where I sit.

And how does:
"If a protestor is blocking you in, and you feel unsafe, you won't be punished if you hit the gas" compare to protesting rights in, say, Afghanistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia?

We're still comparing a mouse and an elephant here.

Because I don't think the cultures you're putting at the top are as virtuous as you think they are. They're just as power-hungry and hypocritical as anybody else. Put them in a failed state with a bunch of guns and in a couple decades, they'll turn out just as bad.

I didn't say I thought they were a supreme symbol of virtue, if I thought that, I would be a member of their religion instead of being religiously unaffiliated.


The reality is, the religious fundamentalists in our country have lived in pockets of lacking educational funding, "food deserts", poverty, elevated unemployment, have been consistently electing likeminded people for local/state levels and for congress...

And they've already had most of the guns in this country for the last 60 years (with an ever increasing stockpile)


Now, one can say they think things have been trending in the wrong direction for a while with regards to attempts to consolidate religious and political power here in the US, but given that the culmination of that is Trump (a guy who's not particularly religious, appoints women and gays to his cabinet, and called the pro-life position "a loser of an issue"), it's not a particularly compelling.

I would go out on a limb and suggest that any perceptions of that situation getting worse is likely only using a 5-10 year lens instead of looking at the overall trajectory, long-term.

The reality is, most of the Christian denominations are far more progressive now (on a variety of issues) than their 1950-1960 counterpart. (and that's with their religion being giving "special social status" for a good portion of that time)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If it had been black people from Africa who had settled America and brought in white slaves from Norway to do their field work the we could still be having this conversation but the colors would be reversed.

That's still an "oppressed vs. oppressor" identity politics lens though.

The idea of giving a pass or using kid gloves to downplay more egregious offenses from one group (just be the the group that's criticizing them the loudest is of the "privileged" group) still isn't a productive approach.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I grew up in a Southern Baptist household.

My mom's family was Southern Baptist, and my dad's side was Irish Catholic.

Ok, but how fundy was your household and your mom's family? "Southern Baptist" is a pretty big tent. The last ~20 years, I've attended urban churches that you'd have no idea were affiliated with the SBC unless you asked. But the SBC also has MAGAdonian Supreme Robert Jeffress. We have/had both Russel Moore and Paige Patterson.

My dad's family is a mix of Irish and Italian Catholics from NYC and my experience with them is that they're not inclined towards fundamentalism, including the cousin who's a Franciscan monk.

The reality is, the religious fundamentalists in our country have lived in pockets of lacking educational funding, "food deserts", poverty, elevated unemployment, have been consistently electing likeminded people for local/state levels and for congress...

And they've already had most of the guns in this country for the last 60 years (with an ever increasing stockpile)

Nobody in this country has lived in anything resembling the institution-less environments that exist throughout much of the Arab world. Everywhere you go in America, there are still state and federal agencies within a couple hours' drive able to keep things from going too far off the rails.

Now, one can say they think things have been trending in the wrong direction for a while with regards to attempts to consolidate religious and political power here in the US, but given that the culmination of that is Trump (a guy who's not particularly religious, appoints women and gays to his cabinet, and called the pro-life position "a loser of an issue"), it's not a particularly compelling.

The fundamentalists often aren't seeking control for the sake of maintaining religious purity; they're seeking it just for the sake of being in control. And while Trump may not be religious, but he is uniquely authoritarian and illiberal in recent American history and, so far, he's been the most inclined to tempt them with the possibility of control.

I would go out on a limb and suggest that any perceptions of that situation getting worse is likely only using a 5-10 year lens instead of looking at the overall trajectory, long-term.

Huh? Isn't that exactly what you're doing. You're the one looking at Christian fundies right now and saying they're not that bad. I'm the one saying that if you let them off the leash for a few decades, things will get pretty hairy.

The reality is, most of the Christian denominations are far more progressive now (on a variety of issues) than their 1950-1960 counterpart.

That's only because they've been pushed in that direction largely by the secular left. Yes, there was a large religious component to the fight for black civil rights, but there was also a large religious contingent fighting against it. I can't think of any "progress" since then that developed within their ranks rather than being foisted on them from the outside.

 

[durangodawood]

Just looking over this discussion, I'd say traditional western liberalism still has a home in America - in a way thats hard to find in the Muslim world.

But..... lets not pat ourselves on the back too hard as we see it eroding from within in favor of powerful anti liberty Christian darkside impulses.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok, but how fundy was your household and your mom's family? "Southern Baptist" is a pretty big tent. The last ~20 years, I've attended urban churches that you'd have no idea were affiliated with the SBC unless you asked. But the SBC also has MAGAdonian Supreme Robert Jeffress. We have/had both Russel Moore and Paige Patterson.

My dad's family is a mix of Irish and Italian Catholics from NYC and my experience with them is that they're not inclined towards fundamentalism, including the cousin who's a Franciscan monk.

That side of my family was from Kentucky, and a few dabbled in the "speaking in tongues" thing at their churches (no snake handling that I'm aware of)

So not necessarily "as fundamentalist" as some of the Apostolic or Pentecostal churches down there, but it was certainly way more conservative than the average nothern suburban SBC church that one may encounter in the New England states.

Huh? Isn't that exactly what you're doing. You're the one looking at Christian fundies right now and saying they're not that bad. I'm the one saying that if you let them off the leash for a few decades, things will get pretty hairy.

That's only because they've been pushed in that direction largely by the secular left. Yes, there was a large religious component to the fight for black civil rights, but there was also a large religious contingent fighting against it. I can't think of any "progress" since then that developed within their ranks rather than being foisted on them from the outside.

The fact that they have allowed themselves to be, to use your words, leashed and pushed in that direction (despite having a substantial portion of the guns and societal power/influence) for decades and decades is indicative of a religion that has a better chance of being able to integrate into a secular society.

If progressives tried to push Islamic fundamentalists in a different direction, what would the outcome be?


When you look at the pattern.

It seems like the longer that Christianity remains the predominant religious ideology of a region, the more secular it ends up getting over the long haul, where as with Islam, it's a fast & furious move in the other direction in many cases.


It ties into what I mentioned before, a difference in the style of the doctrine. The Jesus of the Bible wasn't a politician, and he made no prescriptions for conquest or forced conversion at gun point, and established no moral duty to consolidate power (a lot of the focus was on the kingdom to come after life, not the kingdoms here that are on earth), as where Islam was basically tailor made to be a religious and political conglomerate. (which makes sense given that Muhammed was both a politician and a religious leader, and conquest was very much a part of the rubric)