Gov't power to shut down churches

[Kirk Freeman]

The Klan was brought down by a multi-faceted approach that was comprised of education, economic attacks, building sympathy for the victims, and law enforcement.

The Klan was brought down by undermining its moral authority (that it claimed) by setting up D.C. with the girl. The FBI should take down radical Islam in the same way as they took down the Klan. We can do this by addressing the duty of jihad. We simply recast it.

 

[printcraft]

The Klan was brought down by undermining its moral authority (that it claimed) by setting up D.C. with the girl. The FBI should take down radical Islam in the same way as they took down the Klan.

Yeah, but this time the goal post has an additional barricade.
Political correctness. You dare not speak ill.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why is a renouncing violence a problem for anyone?

You are asking two different questions for the price of one:

1. Do you have a problem renouncing violence, and why?

2. Do you honestly believe that renouncing violence is going to happen, regardless of your personal stance on the issue?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

2. Do you honestly believe that renouncing violence is going to happen, regardless of your personal stance on the issue?​

It can and I think it should. Reforming Islam via this road saves lives, treasure and heartache.

But in the long run, if I knew the future, I'd be a stockbroker.

 

[T.Lex]

If they want anything from us, they renounce jihad.

So, again, billions not interpreting jihad as violence. All for centuries before we had you to explain it to us. Weird.

You guys are talking around each other.

To be successful, this kind of re-interpretation needs allies on the inside. People with cultural credibility to proselytize that the "new" way is really the "old" way or the "better" way. This cannot effectively be done from the outside, but it can be supported.

The more the islamofascist terrorism happens, the more Muslims reject and decry it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The more the islamofascist terrorism happens, the more Muslims reject and decry it.

This is certainly positive: WATCH: Muslims march against the Islamic State in Kansas City - + KSHB.com

 

[JTScribe]

Back to the topic at hand ...

Flash - Ammunition, IS propaganda found after France mosque closure - France 24

 

[T.Lex]

In a sense, the Islamic Renaissance must happen internally. Your examples of Hindu, Mormon, and Japanese emperor-worship were geographically limited. And the authoritarian nature of the motivation to reformulate was imposed by the government of that geographic area.

US Mormonism reacted to the US gov't. (Well, state-level politics played a role, too, but you know what I mean.)

Hindu reformation (of sati, at least) was by the UK gov't, with follow-through by what was left over as the British Empire faded.

No one outside of Japan (or nearly no one) considered the emperor a god, so once the US accepted the surrender, then there was the geographic authority to "encourage" the reformation.

With Islam, there really aren't the same geographic authorities in play. I'm not saying the reformation can't happen because of that, only that it will happen differently. Muslims that do live peacefully in secular societies will have to push for the same ideological acceptance in relatively non-secular parts of the world. (Or not, since INGO believes in political self-determination. If a nation wants sharia law within its borders, then that's up to them.)

 

[IndyDave1776]

In a sense, the Islamic Renaissance must happen internally. Your examples of Hindu, Mormon, and Japanese emperor-worship were geographically limited. And the authoritarian nature of the motivation to reformulate was imposed by the government of that geographic area.

US Mormonism reacted to the US gov't. (Well, state-level politics played a role, too, but you know what I mean.)

Hindu reformation (of sati, at least) was by the UK gov't, with follow-through by what was left over as the British Empire faded.

No one outside of Japan (or nearly no one) considered the emperor a god, so once the US accepted the surrender, then there was the geographic authority to "encourage" the reformation.

With Islam, there really aren't the same geographic authorities in play. I'm not saying the reformation can't happen because of that, only that it will happen differently. Muslims that do live peacefully in secular societies will have to push for the same ideological acceptance in relatively non-secular parts of the world. (Or not, since INGO believes in political self-determination. If a nation wants sharia law within its borders, then that's up to them.)

Exactly. If they want to live that way, that's their problem. If they want to export it to us, turn them into glass.

 

[T.Lex]

Exactly. If they want to live that way, that's their problem. If they want to export it to us, turn them into glass.

Well, I think there are a few middle-options between surrender and nuclear holocaust, but that's me.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, I think there are a few middle-options between surrender and nuclear holocaust, but that's me.

There are, I would probably put conventional air strikes in the middle, but not boots on the ground. Why should more of our people die so fewer of theirs have to?

 

[T.Lex]

There are, I would probably put conventional air strikes in the middle, but not boots on the ground. Why should more of our people die so fewer of theirs have to?

That's a political question. But, in 2 (arguably all 3) of Kirk's examples, there was an occupying force. Boots on the ground is a middle option.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's a political question. But, in 2 (arguably all 3) of Kirk's examples, there was an occupying force. Boots on the ground is a middle option.

I guess I was less than precise. Boots on the ground are a middle option, but not a middle option that I consider acceptable under most circumstances. I simply see no reason why our young people need to be maimed or killed over the stupidity and/or evil of others when there are methods available that apportion the casualties in a manner I consider far more appropriate (i.e., the people who started it taking the hit).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You guys are talking around each other.

To be successful, this kind of re-interpretation needs allies on the inside. People with cultural credibility to proselytize that the "new" way is really the "old" way or the "better" way. This cannot effectively be done from the outside, but it can be supported.

The more the islamofascist terrorism happens, the more Muslims reject and decry it.

Not really. Kirk insists on a need to reform something that is not a problem for billions of people based on the actions of a few. It is insulting that this talk is about Islams need to reform when Islam is just fine in the minds and actions of billions of people. Using terrorists as the baseline while ignoring that fact is simple bigotry.

In addition it simplifies the problem to the point if absurdity. As though war and terrorism would not occur if not for jihad. Religion plays part of the narrative and recruitment, but is far from the only issue. This paternalistic "need to reform" plays in to empire building and anger over meddling in local affairs. How would you view it if outsiders did to our elected government what we did to. Iran's, especially if the news you got was propaganda? How do you address people without a homeland? Israel gets all the attention in the US, but look at the Kurds or Palestinians and Jordanian clashes over territory.

It is the religious equivalent of gun control. The minority sets the narrative, everyone who has done nothing wrong is affected, and the underlying cause of violence remains untouched. It is simple, though, so it appeals to the "we have to do SOMETHING" crowd who would rather not bother to address the complexity of the problem.

 

[T.Lex]

It is simple, though, so it appeals to the "we have to do SOMETHING" crowd who would rather not bother to address the complexity of the problem.

I don't hear Kirk saying the process will be simple - it is not. But the starting point is rather simple: to the extent Islam is corrupted to achieve evil goals, it is a problem for Islam to fix. The non-Islamic world can take steps - both positive reinforcement and negative - but at a fundamental level, there is a limit to what "we" can do. (I think KF's talking about these steps to "encourage" the movement.)

Look, I agree with you. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are not the problem. But that's like saying millions of Chicagoans aren't the problem, either. If we accept that The Problem is people with brutal political agendas using Islam to recruit and motivate people, then it is the people associated with Islam who can apply the necessary counter-leverage. The rest of us are too easily dismissed.

 

[JTScribe]

Not really. Kirk insists on a need to reform something that is not a problem for billions of people based on the actions of a few. It is insulting that this talk is about Islams need to reform when Islam is just fine in the minds and actions of billions of people. Using terrorists as the baseline while ignoring that fact is simple bigotry.

In addition it simplifies the problem to the point if absurdity. As though war and terrorism would not occur if not for jihad. Religion plays part of the narrative and recruitment, but is far from the only issue. This paternalistic "need to reform" plays in to empire building and anger over meddling in local affairs. How would you view it if outsiders did to our elected government what we did to. Iran's, especially if the news you got was propaganda? How do you address people without a homeland? Israel gets all the attention in the US, but look at the Kurds or Palestinians and Jordanian clashes over territory.

It is the religious equivalent of gun control. The minority sets the narrative, everyone who has done nothing wrong is affected, and the underlying cause of violence remains untouched. It is simple, though, so it appeals to the "we have to do SOMETHING" crowd who would rather not bother to address the complexity of the problem.

I disagree. Let's throw terrorism out of the equation.

Muslim-majority nations still have horrible issues with treatment of religious minorities, cruel and unusual punishments for petty crimes, gay rights, women's rights, etc.

If that isn't a religion/political system in dire need of a reformation, what is?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't hear Kirk saying the process will be simple - it is not. But the starting point is rather simple: to the extent Islam is corrupted to achieve evil goals, it is a problem for Islam to fix. The non-Islamic world can take steps - both positive reinforcement and negative - but at a fundamental level, there is a limit to what "we" can do. (I think KF's talking about these steps to "encourage" the movement.)

Look, I agree with you. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are not the problem. But that's like saying millions of Chicagoans aren't the problem, either. If we accept that The Problem is people with brutal political agendas using Islam to recruit and motivate people, then it is the people associated with Islam who can apply the necessary counter-leverage. The rest of us are too easily dismissed.

Not the process, the alleged issue. Do you know the source of first modern call for jihad as war? The Germans. For the purpose of using Arabs to fight the British in occupied Egypt. Was that a religious fight? To ally with Germans against Brits, or was it a political war with jihad as a narrative? The narrative was also freeing the occupied Egyptians from the yoke of the British Empire, etc. That's the issue. All this focus on jihad ignores that the narrative is easily replaced with nationalism, ecvonomic injustice, the feeling of belinging, etc. Same thing all radical groups, criminal gangs, etc use.

 

[T.Lex]

Not the process, the alleged issue. Do you know the source of first modern call for jihad as war? The Germans. For the purpose of using Arabs to fight the British in occupied Egypt. Was that a religious fight? To ally with Germans against Brits, or was it a political war with jihad as a narrative? The narrative was also freeing the occupied Egyptians from the yoke of the British Empire, etc. That's the issue. All this focus on jihad ignores that the narrative is easily replaced with nationalism, ecvonomic injustice, the feeling of belinging, etc. Same thing all radical groups, criminal gangs, etc use.

That's a bit misleading, though, right? Free the oppressed (jihad) is an easy rallying cry. The current jihad has nothing to do with Germany or the British empire. Your example is just that - an example of when religious motivation was leveraged for political goals.

Heck, Manifest Destiny fits the bill, too.

Either way, your characterization furthers KF's point. Nationalism-inspired aggression, evening the economic playing field via revolution, etc., all require a violent smack down once they turn violent. This starts OUTSIDE the group. For it to be successful on the scale of nation-states, though, there must be advocates inside the groups that turn it to the political arena, rather than combat.

Another example is the IRA/Sinn Fein. Britain didn't force the Republicans (in the Irish sense) into the political system. Rather, the violent people abandoned violence in favor of the political process. Or joined the Provos. Either way, the violent parts were maginalized by those inside.

ETA:
To turn this back to the OP, as bad as The Troubles got in Northern Ireland, I don't recall the Brits ever shutting down Catholic churches. I may have that wrong, I just don't remember reading about it. They certainly investigated people in attendance - including priests - but didn't shut them down. (At least not since 1970, I think.)

Oh, and going back to JTScribe's link, there might be a reporting issue. If LEOs executed a search warrant at a mosque/church, that would necessarily involve "shutting it down" for a certain amount of time. (At least until reporters pried away the plywood.) So maybe that's all that happened, instead of "shutting it down" just to shut it down.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I disagree. Let's throw terrorism out of the equation.

Muslim-majority nations still have horrible issues with treatment of religious minorities, cruel and unusual punishments for petty crimes, gay rights, women's rights, etc.

If that isn't a religion/political system in dire need of a reformation, what is?

Really? What's Jordans horrible issue with the treatment of religious minorities? Qatar? Bahrain? Malaysia?
Cruel and unusual punishment for petty crimes? Ok. What's Jordan's punishment for petty theft? Forgery? Simple battery? Qatar? Bahrain?

Gay rights, yeah, that's a fact. Women's rights, yeah, that's a fact. How much of that stems from religion vs culture is debatable, and the Quran calls for equality between the sexes with a recognition of differences. If Islam is the issue there, than non-Islamic countries ought not to have those issues, though, right? Probably why Russia is so open to gay rights. I suppose you'll call for the reformation of Hinduism if I can show India is severely lacking in basic human rights for girls and women?

Out of curiosity, where did most of the opposition to gay rights in the US come from? Ready to call for reformation of any involved religions there? If a Muslim does anything, it's because they are a Muslim. If a Christian does something, it's in spite of being Christian. Right?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That's a bit misleading, though, right? Free the oppressed (jihad) is an easy rallying cry. The current jihad has nothing to do with Germany or the British empire. Your example is just that - an example of when religious motivation was leveraged for political goals.

So you don't think most of the sources of jihad today are political or economic goals at their root? The establishment of a state? Reclaiming a homeland? Opposing outside interference? Feelings of injustice in how resources are distributed? Feelings of social injustice and being a plaything of the powerful? What was The Arab Spring about? The same narratives.