Random Politics & Religion #00

I just got kicked out of a Destiny raid by a bunch of 10 year olds from Uzbekistan because I died. One called me a retard. So I say nuke them all.

1 in 5 British Muslims have some sympathy for jihadists.

Hey lets open our doors as wide as we can to those who have sympathy for those terrorizing our culture...

This analysis seems to be popular in the west, but it's not quite accurate.

There is no central body (aka church) that controls the religion and modifies it as they deem fit. You've got scholars trained in a certain tradition.

"Clerics" by themselves don't really hold power (politically, not ideologically) unless it's a theocracy, and only Iran fits the definition. You might disagree about Saudi Arabia, but the royalties have been pretty smart about "employing" clerics to do their bidding, not otherwise. There are things they are told to speak about, and there are things they are banned from speaking about. The grand mufti doesn't have any influence on Saudi politics.

Actually this happens in most countries, as means of control. Look at Egypt and its Azhar Sheikh for example.

So, what do you need to produce change? You need new scholars (clerics) who are knowledgeable and learned about the faith to challenge whatever extreme traditions the current "popular" scholars hold, but who are also popular enough to have people follow them, till the new "tradition" becomes established.

every individual needs to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and held accountable on thier own actions

Give the Syrian refugees Israeli land and let us take the Jews instead.

This analysis seems to be popular in the west, but it's not quite accurate.

There is no central body (aka church) that controls the religion and modifies it as they deem fit. You've got scholars trained in a certain tradition.

"Clerics" by themselves don't really hold power (politically, not ideologically) unless it's a theocracy, and only Iran fits the definition. You might disagree about Saudi Arabia, but the royalties have been pretty smart about "employing" clerics to do their bidding, not otherwise. There are things they are told to speak about, and there are things they are banned from speaking about. The grand mufti doesn't have any influence on Saudi politics.

Actually this happens in most countries, as means of control. Look at Egypt and its Azhar Sheikh for example.

So, what do you need to produce change? You need new scholars (clerics) who are knowledgeable and learned about the faith to challenge whatever extreme traditions the current "popular" scholars hold, but who are also popular enough to have people follow them, till the new "tradition" becomes established.

1 in 5 British Muslims have some sympathy for jihadists.

Hey lets open our doors as wide as we can to those who have sympathy for those terrorizing our culture...

I hold the machiavellian idea that history is cyclical and civilization tend to develop the same evolutionary patterns in different moments(due to geographical and economical factors).
Even if the two religions are structured differently, the population might still evolve in a similar fashion, regardless of who holds the power. Because over time people(everywhere) desire to become more liberalized and this is countered by the most fervent traditionalists who afraid to see their faith dissolved under too much rebelliousness and immorality attempt to seize control, too often through violent means(because there is hardly any logical way to impose archaic rules on those who live in the modern world).
Now, I think Al Baghdadi uses religion merely as an excuse, but what matters is not whether the leader is true to his word or not, but what the mass below him believes.

This analysis seems to be popular in the west, but it's not quite accurate.

There is no central body (aka church) that controls the religion and modifies it as they deem fit. You've got scholars trained in a certain tradition.

"Clerics" by themselves don't really hold power (politically, not ideologically) unless it's a theocracy, and only Iran fits the definition. You might disagree about Saudi Arabia, but the royalties have been pretty smart about "employing" clerics to do their bidding, not otherwise. There are things they are told to speak about, and there are things they are banned from speaking about. The grand mufti doesn't have any influence on Saudi politics.

Actually this happens in most countries, as means of control. Look at Egypt and its Azhar Sheikh for example.

So, what do you need to produce change? You need new scholars (clerics) who are knowledgeable and learned about the faith to challenge whatever extreme traditions the current "popular" scholars hold, but who are also popular enough to have people follow them, till the new "tradition" becomes established.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this theory. Do you think it apply to religions as well (since you said "civilizations"), or rather countries and dynasties?

The thing is, this "desire to become more liberalized" depends on the population viewing their religion as hindering their progress, either that, or someone providing them with a better alternative that satisfies their spiritual needs. Muslims believe that "Islam is timeless", doesn't hinder progress, and would cite the Golden Age in Andalusia, 8th-9th century Baghdad as examples.

If you're interested, you can have a look at this article by a British Muslim: Is Islam Compatible with British Values? It's kinda relevant.

On November 23, 2015 Ahmed's family threatened to sue the City of Irving and school district for civil rights violations and physical and mental anguish unless they receive a written apology, and compensation of fifteen million dollars.

The kid got a bunch of free ***and even free schooling in Qatar, this is just greedy

This analysis seems to be popular in the west, but it's not quite accurate.

There is no central body (aka church) that controls the religion and modifies it as they deem fit. You've got scholars trained in a certain tradition.

"Clerics" by themselves don't really hold power (politically, not ideologically) unless it's a theocracy, and only Iran fits the definition. You might disagree about Saudi Arabia, but the royalties have been pretty smart about "employing" clerics to do their bidding, not otherwise. There are things they are told to speak about, and there are things they are banned from speaking about. The grand mufti doesn't have any influence on Saudi politics.

Actually this happens in most countries, as means of control. Look at Egypt and its Azhar Sheikh for example.

So, what do you need to produce change? You need new scholars (clerics) who are knowledgeable and learned about the faith to challenge whatever extreme traditions the current "popular" scholars hold, but who are also popular enough to have people follow them, till the new "tradition" becomes established.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this theory. Do you think it apply to religions as well (since you said "civilizations"), or rather countries and dynasties?

The thing is, this "desire to become more liberalized" depends on the population viewing their religion as hindering their progress, either that, or someone providing them with a better alternative that satisfies their spiritual needs. Muslims believe that "Islam is timeless", doesn't hinder progress, and would cite the Golden Age in Andalusia, 8th-9th century Baghdad as examples.

If you're interested, you can have a look at this article by a British Muslim: Is Islam Compatible with British Values? It's kinda relevant.

Turkey shot down a Russian Su 24 fighter jet on the Turkish-Syrian border after it invaded their airspace. Both pilots were seen ejecting but no word on how they're doing. Russia has repeatedly invaded Turkish airspace since they started bombing in Syria.

Apparently it was warned 10 times in 5 minutes before being shot down.

Edit: One of the pilots may have been kidnapped by Syrian rebels but it's still unclear as there is conflicting information.

Su-24, wow, what a relic. Russian incompetence continues in Syria. Cool pictures tho.

Syrian rebels

Something tells me you will be hearing about them today.

So what? Russia isn't going to do anything, they can't even beat the Syrian rebels, much less the Turks. I bet they won't violate Turkish airspace anymore.

President Barack Obama will stand in solidarity with French President Francois Hollande at the White House on Tuesday, 11 days after the Islamic State group launched a series of deadly attacks in Paris. But Hollande is likely to leave Washington without firm backing for his call to bring Russia into a new coalition to fight the extremists.

Hollande's visit to Washington is part of a diplomatic offensive to get the international community to bolster the campaign against the Islamic State militants. The group is believed to have been behind the Nov. 13 attacks that killed 130 people in Paris, as well as separate attacks in Lebanon and Turkey and the downing of a Russian airliner in Egypt.

As the Islamic State group expands its reach outside its bases in Syria and Iraq, Obama is facing increased pressure at home and abroad to ramp up U.S. efforts to destroy the militants. So far, Obama is resisting calls to either change or significantly ramp up his approach, and instead is focused on getting other countries to offer more counterintelligence, humanitarian and military assistance.

"The United States is certainly pulling more than our own weight," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "And we believe that there is more that can be done if countries are willing to contribute additional resources."

The U.S. campaign has centered largely on launching airstrikes, while training and assisting security forces on the ground in Iraq. Efforts to train and equip moderate rebel groups in Syria have struggled, though Obama has authorized the deployment of 50 special operations forces to the country to jumpstart the program.

France has stepped up its airstrikes following the Paris attacks, relying in part on U.S. intelligence to hit targets in Raqqa, the Islamic State group's stronghold in Syria. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday he would seek parliamentary approval this week for Britain to begin airstrikes as well.

Hollande wants the U.S.-led coalition to start cooperating with Russia, which is also launching airstrikes in Syria. While Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country is targeting the Islamic State militants, the U.S. contends Moscow is going after rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, a Kremlin ally.

Last week, Hollande called for the U.S. and Russia to set aside their policy divisions over Syria and "fight this terrorist army in a broad, single coalition." But his office acknowledges that "coordination" sounds like a far more realistic goal.

"We are not talking about a command center. We are talking about coordination of methods and exchange of intelligence," a French diplomat said on Monday. The diplomat wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the subject and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Earnest said the U.S. would "continue the conversation" with Putin but suggested Obama would make no promises to Hollande during Tuesday's visit.

From Washington, Hollande will travel to Moscow for meetings with Putin.

Beyond their discussions on military cooperation, Obama and Hollande are expected to discuss diplomatic efforts to achieve a political transition in Syria. The U.S. and France support a transition that would lead to the departure of Assad, who has overseen a civil war in his country that created a vacuum for the Islamic State group to thrive.

While Russia is backing a new diplomatic effort in Syria, Moscow still refuses to support steps that explicitly call for removing Assad from power.

The quagmire in Syria has dragged on for nearly five years, and criticism of Obama's strategy appears only to grow louder.

On Sunday, both Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Leon Panetta, Obama's former defense secretary, said the U.S. effort wasn't measuring up. Feinstein called for more aggressive action and additional special operations forces in Syria.

"I don't think the approach is sufficient to the job," Feinstein said on CBS' "Face the Nation."