Burkini Ban in France

[brimstoneSalad]

Please don't quote entire posts, just cut out what you're replying to.

BUT: if you're going to ascribe a certain philosophy and/or people with being the root cause of a problem, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH YOU.

Anybody who makes a claim adopts a burden of proof.
The same for you, with the claims you've made here.

To say "To say that Syria is not doing well "because the citizens do not respect secular law enough for it to be enforced" is fucking asinine." is fucking asinine.

If you don't know, then just say that. Say, "it's possible, but it also might be something else" and then there's no issue.

So far, I'm the only one who has cited any evidence. So, if you disagree or you think it's something else, then show some of your own. Or make an argument for something else. Or make an argument against the cause I cite.

Of course, in any field of social science or politics (because these are such soft sciences) the evidence is always going to be iffy. I go with what seems best supported with what we have.

And if you're going to prove something, it helps not to have total ignorance of what is actually happening in the region - the people, the politics, their actions, the money, the special interests of regional powers...etc.

I'm aware of those, and I know they don't help, but if you're claiming those are the cause instead, you have to provide evidence of that.
The same problems of civil unrest and divisive politics exist elsewhere without those pressures (or with very different pressures) too.

I'll cite Malaysia again, because that's just the case I know the most about:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/asia/malaysia-hudud-bill/

If not ideology, where do you assert this is coming from? The issue falls on religious lines, both from politicians and regionally.

The people advocating these ideas SAY it's due to ideology. They SAY it's due to their Islamic faith. The default position is to take them at their words (like ISIS' recent press release which outlined this clearly). If you want to speculate on secret political motivations driving all of this, go for it, but the burden of proof is on you to show this is the case when the people advocating these things say the opposite.

Further, you have done the Sam Harris thing of repeatedly alluding to surveys or statistics without actually understanding the inherently qualitative nature of social issues.

I think I said pretty clearly that Muslims don't even know what they want. Harris makes the mistake of assuming they're all consistent -- like (as I mentioned before) Christians who think the ten commandments should be the basis of law, not realizing that means stoning people who do any work on the Sabbath.

If you don't understand the quality of something, numbers and statistics don't mean anything.

I agree. But I do have some understanding of the qualities being discussed. I've studied Islam, I've had conversations with Muslims (from the more conservative to the more liberal), I'm aware of their state of knowledge and ignorance around the Qur'an and Sharia law.

Finally, if Malaysia is the best example you know of, I suggest that you need to open up your reading to more sources.

I already asked you to give me a better example. You can't just say that. If you can't -- with Google at your fingertips -- find a better example, either you're feigning a knowledge you don't have, or there isn't one. It would take you seconds to find and provide a link. I would be delighted to read about a better example.

Preemptively, this is not me being PC or an "apologist". This is me being intellectually honest.

I understand, but I'm doing the same: I think you are mistaking me for an extremist of the other sort.

See this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=478

I understand what poll results mean and don't mean.

[keith_hendrix]

Anybody who makes a claim adopts a burden of proof.
The same for you, with the claims you've made here.

To say "To say that Syria is not doing well "because the citizens do not respect secular law enough for it to be enforced" is fucking asinine." is fucking asinine.

If you don't know, then just say that. Say, "it's possible, but it also might be something else" and then there's no issue.

So far, I'm the only one who has cited any evidence. So, if you disagree or you think it's something else, then show some of your own. Or make an argument for something else. Or make an argument against the cause I cite.

Of course, in any field of social science or politics (because these are such soft sciences) the evidence is always going to be iffy. I go with what seems best supported with what we have.

You made a claim that the problems in Syria and Turkey are "because citizens do not respect secular law enough to enforce it"; you have given zero evidence for this claim.

My reply to this has been to list a snapshot of factors that give context to the violence, and to implore you not to make such a claim without providing evidence.

I have never claimed to have all the answers. There is no burden of proof on me. It is entirely on you when you claim to know why Syria and Turkey are going down the toilet.

The whole reason Syria and Turkey came up was your praise of secular law - now I am obviously a fan of secular law as well. But I was pointing out that it's not something that's foreign to the Muslim world as Syria and Turkey have had secular law for a long, long time, and I don't think they specifically need to be taught its value. It's also not a mass solution...obviously.

I'm aware of those, and I know they don't help, but if you're claiming those are the cause instead, you have to provide evidence of that.
The same problems of civil unrest and divisive politics exist elsewhere without those pressures (or with very different pressures) too.

I'll cite Malaysia again, because that's just the case I know the most about:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/asia/malaysia-hudud-bill/

If not ideology, where do you assert this is coming from? The issue falls on religious lines, both from politicians and regionally.

The people advocating these ideas SAY it's due to ideology. They SAY it's due to their Islamic faith. The default position is to take them at their words (like ISIS' recent press release which outlined this clearly). If you want to speculate on secret political motivations driving all of this, go for it, but the burden of proof is on you to show this is the case when the people advocating these things say the opposite.

I have never claimed that religion is not an influence. And for many of these groups, their religion is a major influence. I've never said anything to contradict this.

That's not what you said though. See above.

RE: political motivations - they are not secret. Just look at all of the different factions involved just within Syria. Also keep in mind that the environment from which ISIS and Nusra gained a foothold was out of mass political unrest due to the crimes of the Assad regime (amongst other things). Also consider that Nusra itself is able to attract a large number of Syrians to fight for it purely for the fact that it is the most effective in fighting government forces. Al-Qaeda is upset because Saudi Arabian influences are trying to change the leadership of Nusra to more closely match up with that of the Free Syrian Army rather than Al Qaeda - they are only able to do this because of the core Syrian support that is largely more interested in breaking the regime. Sectarian-Secular may be part of it, but the main motivation is to fight Assad. There are plenty of similar rationales coming from the Kurds.

Again, I'm not for one second claiming that Islam is not a factor.

I think I said pretty clearly that Muslims don't even know what they want. Harris makes the mistake of assuming they're all consistent -- like (as I mentioned before) Christians who think the ten commandments should be the basis of law, not realizing that means stoning people who do any work on the Sabbath.

I agree. But I do have some understanding of the qualities being discussed. I've studied Islam, I've had conversations with Muslims (from the more conservative to the more liberal), I'm aware of their state of knowledge and ignorance around the Qur'an and Sharia law.

The point I was trying to make is that their desire for Shari'ah law doesn't mean they don't understand or want secular law, and doesn't they want a particular mode of enforcement or archaic practices to occur.

I already asked you to give me a better example. You can't just say that. If you can't -- with Google at your fingertips -- find a better example, either you're feigning a knowledge you don't have, or there isn't one. It would take you seconds to find and provide a link. I would be delighted to read about a better example.

Jordan.

understand, but I'm doing the same: I think you are mistaking me for an extremist of the other sort.

See this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=478

I understand what poll results mean and don't mean.

Apologies if I'm coming across as somewhat triggered.

However, I don't think I'm making unreasonable points here.

[brimstoneSalad]

I have never claimed that religion is not an influence. And for many of these groups, their religion is a major influence. I've never said anything to contradict this.

Do you believe that these conflicts would still exist if these people were all atheists? Take away the racism/religious ideology, hold all people as equal and without these faith based modes of thinking to model their policy decisions on, and where do you think conflict can stem from?

Obviously there have been strong political ideologies in the past (communism), but I think we're rather beyond that era.

You made a claim that the problems in Syria and Turkey are "because citizens do not respect secular law enough to enforce it"; you have given zero evidence for this claim.

You can try to blame government corruption if you want, but how did the government become corrupt?
Do you deny that might have had something to do with it being installed somewhere people didn't agree with it, and so lacked the transparency and accountability that keeps government honest?

What's your take on it?

When people share a respect for secular law, it's not that hard to come to terms. Even in the rebellion, it's comical; atheists fighting along side Islamic extremists because they agree on tearing down the corrupt government, but with no possible agreement on what to create in its place.

Divide and conquer; fragmented political opposition is the key to power. IF the people respect secular law, they can come together not just to destroy but to create, and despots have no refuge.

My reply to this has been to list a snapshot of factors that give context to the violence, and to implore you not to make such a claim without providing evidence.

To which I replied that these are products of ideological fragmentation and a failure to come together in support of secular law.

I have never claimed to have all the answers. There is no burden of proof on me. It is entirely on you when you claim to know why Syria and Turkey are going down the toilet.

In respect to the "why", I might as well have said "human nature". I don't know how to fix it.

But I was pointing out that it's not something that's foreign to the Muslim world as Syria and Turkey have had secular law for a long, long time, and I don't think they specifically need to be taught its value.

I think they do, though. Some respect it, obviously, but not enough to avert serious religious conflict.

The issue in Turkey at least seems to have stemmed from religious fundamentalism creeping into the government. If not supported by a sizable portion of the population, I don't see where this would have come from.

Teaching people to respect secular law: it's just not really a thing that can be done so easily.
I was just replying to knot (who is probably more the anti-Islam extreme you were expecting) that this law being overturned may be a good thing because it helps teach the value of secular law.
When you're being oppressed, and secular law steps up and protects you, it has an endearing quality.

RE: political motivations - they are not secret. Just look at all of the different factions involved just within Syria.

Factions -- I see this as evidence that it's ideological.

Also keep in mind that the environment from which ISIS and Nusra gained a foothold was out of mass political unrest due to the crimes of the Assad regime (amongst other things).

Fertile soil, I understand, and yet nothing can grow without a seed. Also: what manure fertilized that soil?

You could say I seemed to be blaming people of the present for the effects of people of the past failing to respect the value of secular law. Revolution is meaningless without consensus on a replacement government, though, and lack of respect of secular law does seem to be at the root of it (so, with respect to the potential for future problems, or problems in Europe).

Again, I'm not for one second claiming that Islam is not a factor.

Multiple factors are responsible. And when they're all this prominent and interrelated, In theory, take away any one and you can solve the problem. I wasn't saying there weren't other factors, I was just addressing the factor knot (the other poster) was concerned with.

The point I was trying to make is that their desire for Shari'ah law doesn't mean they don't understand or want secular law, and doesn't they want a particular mode of enforcement or archaic practices to occur.

The latter point I agree on, since they don't even know what it means. The former I don't agree on: always bet on ignorance. I don't think Americans understand or respect the value of secular law; look at how many people are still trying to ban abortions or gay marriages. BUT they respect it a tiny bit more than people in the Islamic world.

Jordan.

Secular in name; their legislation is riddled with religiously motivated laws. Laws against abortion, against ridiculing Muhammad, even apparently against breaking the fast during Ramadan? That's a farce of secular law. It may not be full on Sharia, but that's not respect for secular law.

A dual system of various family Sharia laws (and Christian laws) under an overarching Sharia light.

There are areas in the states where you can't buy alcohol on a Sunday and I'll criticize that (as much as I hate alcohol), so don't accuse me of cherry picking, but at least the courts have a habit of striking these things down when people manage to find standing.
It's not perfect, but more respect for secular law = more peaceful society (when we're dealing with a plurality of beliefs).

Ideology underscores most of this conflict, and a shared respect for secular law is a way of putting a pin in ideology and legislating on common ground of reason and evidence.

[keith_hendrix]

Jordan's not a secular country, you didn't ask for a secular law, you asked for an example of where Shari'ah law exists alongside other religious courts.

I'll get to the rest of the post when I get round to it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Jordan's not a secular country, you didn't ask for a secular law, you asked for an example of where Shari'ah law exists alongside other religious courts.

I was asking for Sharia in parallel to secular law. I didn't mean Sharia courts and Christian courts in parallel (although that's interesting to see). Maybe I miscommunicated somehow.