Why are we not talking about religion? As islam is encrouching on western society...

Why are we not talking about religion? As islam is encrouching on western society, specifically muslims who are not ready or willing to lose their faith, why are we not trying to make religious arguments in favor of a peacful coexistence? As in why are we not talking about biblical and textual interpretation and looking at easy to digest arguments about how biblical or quranic texts can be interpreted in new ways?
I got to thinking about it as i was driving today and saw an arab girl who was wearing sluty clothing(by muslim standards of course) and thought about how i prefer this over a hijab because it means she has little chance of becoming a fundmanetalist.

It seems that a direct "for dummies" counter to religion is simply hedonism.
Shit like "ooh i csn eat pork" or "ooh i can drink alcohol without guilt" or "can sleep around" etc...
On the other hand muslim authority figures are fighting this by saying exactly that this is the alternative the west offers.

So shouldnt our goal be to make popular and discuss catchy ways of presenting religious texts, even if they include calls for aggression, in a new way that is integratable with more personal freedom while at the other hand think about possible deficencies in secular western society?
What can we, even as atheists, adopt from abrahamic texts, that we havent yet, so as to make religious texts a part of our modern lives and adopt them as ours again, as oppose to relegating them to the wrong sort of people.

so instead of shouting to religious extremists "there is no god" or how dumb they are, we can present our own versions that are palatable to us and can allow belivers to change their views without feeling they ar ebetraying their heritage.

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04267v1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because coming up with different interpretations of the Quran is considered blasphemy and Muslims are not willing to debate their scriptures like Christians are.
Also liberals are unwilling to question their Islamic masters.
And even then, even if you could come up with a softer interpretation of Islam, it still wouldn't fit in with European Christian society

>Because coming up with different interpretations of the Quran is considered blasphemy and Muslims are not willing to debate their scriptures like Christians are.
Muslims never stop debating the Qur'an. Not that theres much to debate, it's quite a clear book.

>Muslims never stop debating the Quran
This is true but this is different to if a Christian tried to find their own morality within it.
These debates are about choosing between one evil or another slightly different evil, because as you said, the book is quite clear

How about you first assume its possible instead of assuming it isnt possible?
Its coming, one way or another so it better be possible.
In fact, it is exactly the hing that seems impossible which is often the exact thing that should be done or considered.

You can say the same about the bible and before the dogma was loosened and countries secularized there were very harsh religious controls. Hell, christian rough interpretations still exist in different communities today.

Weren't most of the Attacks done by Westernised Hendoists rather than devoted muslims?

basically what you're talking about is corrupting their morals to neuter them as threat.
how do you think they'll respond to that?

>it's coming one way or the other, so it better be possible
You speak as if reforming Islam is the only option, it's quite easy to just not let them in. And if they do get in, it's easy to just kick them out.
I have no intention of reforming Islam, it simply isn't possible, converting them to Christianity, providing safe zones for civilians in the ME and letting them solve their own problems is much easier and cost effective.

If islam was never invented the Arab World and Persian World would likely have been more advanced than Europe by now

>Christianity
Yes and how many atrocities had to be commited to achieve this?
I'd rather not start a holy war and just let them roll around in the sand until their hearts content.
There's no reason to bring them into Europe and Islam can easily be contained to the ME where everyone is happy with the results

Containment is the only way to prevent the plague

Not corrupting. Their interpretations are simplistic and backwards. Just updating them. Their societies are more primitive both culturally and intellectualy. It is now up to us, as islam is spreading like wildfire to deal with it.

Yeah right. In what sense is it politically possible? And how is it physically possible to run after millions of muslims trying to physcailly kick them out.
This is very hard to do and will definately be a violent procedure. Meaning that one way or another western ideals will have to change. Do you want to devalue human life again? or should we instead engage with relgion but on our level instead of theirs...

Are you an imam? If not, your opinion doesn't matter.

Only Karaite Judaism, Protestant Christianity, and Quranism believe in sola scriptura anyway.

None of the world religions outside them do.

This is most likely nonesense.
Eurooe got rich as fuck as a result of different geography and abilities as technology changed.
Just as the middle east was the most suitable for the begining of complex civilizations at the time.

>in what way is this politically possible
Anything is possible, hard swings in citizens attitudes are relatively common
>in what sense is it physically possible to run after millions of Muslims trying to kick them out
We have plenty of military personnel and resources, it would be a cake walk to round them up and ship them out
>western ideals will have to change
Agreed
>Do you want to devalue human life again?
Not necessarily, I'd rather no one was killed, but I would like to see a more aggressive attitude in westerners towards the mass influx of such different peoples

The Muslims who actually cause trouble don't give a shit about theology and aren't actually devout. ISIS guys don't read the Quran. Their computers that we've seized are full of porn.

>peaceful coexistence
sup reddit

Indeed it is the pork-eating, alcohol-drinking, porn-consuming, immodestly clothed, assimilated, undistinguishable from a westerner in his or her behaviour, 2nd generation immigrant or later, that must be feared the most.

This western, liberal "Islam" where the forgiveness of Allah (may He be praised and exalted) is distorded as the excuse for all self-indulgent western behavior, as well as terrorist attacks in which the "Muslim"'s death is actively sought, is the real danger to your civilizations.

If you're looking for the "Islamic Reformation" you desire, look at ISIS, the terrorists, and their western liberal "Islam".

They are the "Islamic Reformation." You're welcome.

If you wanted to implant a mind virus into a population to destroy it from within...

>As islam is encrouching on western society, specifically muslims who are not ready or willing to lose their faith, why are we not trying to make religious arguments in favor of a peacful coexistence?

Because it's intrinsic to Abrahamic religion that you must submit to the only one true god. This is why polytheism is vastly superior to any of the Abrahamic religions, and why 'going back' to Christianity won't solve shit.

Ultimately, all of this is due to people who won't accept that there is more than just one way to live and view your life, and unless you get away from Abrahamic religion, nothing will ever change. We will simply have different versions of the same, intrinsically destructive idea

But perhaps we need ot now look at the world as global, meaning that their problems aer in part our problems much like how in a nation the problems of the poor inadvertently become at least partially the problems of the rich, as in more poverty causes more violence and criminality.

If you look at revolutionary thinking it was a result of things like the printing press and literacy that allowed national ideas to be quickly spread across a nation.
In the modern world with instant communications and dominant languages a new entity emerges, the global sphere, this imageboard is one such symptom.

>this imageboard is one such symptom
As in, this imageboard and the tribalism between the boards within correctly depict the pluralist, not "global" reality we live in?

>the modern world with instant communications
Read this paper, before you delude yourself further over the effectiveness of your "arguments"
arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04267v1

>meaning that their problems aer in part our problems
Fuck off, imperialist scum, and take your white man's burden and manifest destiny with you

The main problem is that the role model of the religion, Muhammad, was not a nice guy at all. How do you resolve that?

I dont see how the cration of echo chambers based on INTERESTS is a counterpoint to a globalising world. It is in fact one of the symptoms. In a non globalised world there are groups of interests but they are mosr or less limited to each nation. In a global world the groups of interests are international.

What I meant ot sya about problems is that when they have problems we inadvertently have problems from them...
Anyway you dont seem like a reasonable person ot be talking about this.
Visit /pol/ less you are a result of the very thing the study you posted wrote about.

Zeus was by most accounts a total dickhead and yet the Greeks were alright

International trade and the imperialism you advocate are far older. Before English was the lingua franca, Latin was.

The world did not become globalised. If anything, the borders between countries are more solid than they've ever been.

Concepts such as national states, sovereign territory, race on your ID card, education systems designed for national conformity, etc. were completely alien back in the day.

People were experiencing globalism when they didn't care which emperor was in charge of their village and what language he spoke.

The world is pluralist, not globalist.

Back to /pol/ you go, you racist scum.

>/pol/
>globalist
What?

Plenty of Christians, Jews etc. in the west seem perfectly content to let people believe in other gods, religions or to claim it's all nonsense while maintaining cordial relations with them though.
A lot of them might not be that devout and maybe that's why, but nonetheless they believe in and love God, or claim to, without really caring if other people don't.

/pol/ pushes this campaign against globalism to further nationalist agendas. The world, however, is not globalist, but pluralist, and the structures for the existence, reinforcement and survival of nationalism, as evidenced by Putin and Erdogan, are the best ever. The internet too plays a role in the spreading of nationalism as it can bring the extremists of both sides closer. It's the same thing with how /pol/ treat marxism and its heirs: they act as if this was still a bi-polar, NATO vs URSS world, instead of a multipolar, pluralist stage.

So if you want to act as if globalism is a thing, you should follow /pol/'s own advice: "You have to go back."

Kill yourself.

...

>may he be praised

fuckin kek

Why are you positioning globalism versus pluralism. The one does not oppose the other.
They can be complementary.

helpful infographic explaining the terms

>diversity
>a solution

I'm not endorsing or disputing a position. The logic for each may vary.

Sharia law has no place in the West

I will not tolerate it

Christianity has adapted and reformed to Western values. Islam refuses to.

If they reform and abandon Sharia and conversion by sword then they can stay. Otherwise, they have to either die or leave the West.

>As islam is encrouching on western society, specifically muslims who are not ready or willing to lose their faith
You mean the muslims who end up living in 99% muslim neighbourhoods because of the main population of that country being racist xenophobic cunts?
You mean the muslims who don't integrate properly because they're just with lots of other muslims?

If Muslim families were distributed properly, say... one per street, they'd integrate a lot better. It'd also help if the native population weren't so xenophobic.
It's a never ending cycle really, muslims come into the country, natives get all worked up and xenophobic, so the muslims live with other muslims and don't integrate, thus furthering the problem.

People need to stop being childish.

LOL

It's not that they don't integrate because of racist right-wing death squads. They don't integrate because they expect YOU, the west, to accommodate their savage desert religion. They want you to integrate into them.

When you're 17, I know its real easy to be delusional and believe that everyone around the world is just like you and super nice guys and if they aren't acting nice then it's your own fault, but that's just not the case dude.

They segregate themselves you fool

>They don't integrate because they expect YOU, the west, to accommodate their savage desert religion. They want you to integrate into them.

Not exactly. That attitude only occurs once the muslims end up living in "ghettos" for a few generations. Which is a direct result of the general xenophobic attitude of the native people of a country.
There's one Bangladeshi family on my street and they're not even muslim, yet if I walk 40 minutes away I'll be in a very muslim area because that's where most muslim families end up living due to the general xenophobic attitude of the native population of this country.

>When you're 17, I know its real easy to be delusional and believe that everyone around the world is just like you and super nice guys and if they aren't acting nice then it's your own fault, but that's just not the case dude.

What?
It's a simple theory that everyone's aware of: Don't be a cunt.

Unfortunately there's far too much dumb propaganda and misinformation going about, so it's very hard to make people not be cunts about an issue that they both complain about and cause.

Why would they want to settle in a white community when there is a 95% muslim community where they don't have to learn the language as fast, or get accustomed to the new culture, even if the natives aren't massive xenophobes? It's hard enough to resettle, it's only natural to want to keep as much security as possible. And are you suggesting forced eviction and forced placement of immigrants so that they follow your integration plans? That's extremely totalitarian of you.

The only solution of integration is inflow control. Make ghettoization impossible and cross cultural meetings inevitable without totalitarian measures, or even any governmental intervention at all.

>Why are we not talking about religion?
Why are you so fucking new?

Leftists would rather die themselves to an islamist than say that Islam is dangerous.

Cultural marxism at its best.

Because the globalist project and project has never been a single phenomenon undertaken by one global power alone.

This didn't happen when the world was bi-polar: you had one "globalization" from the West, involving the powers supporting capitalism and another "globalization", of the East, that of communism.

Even all the way back to ancient, Greece you will see two powers competing for hegemony over Hellas.

Now that we live in a multipolar world things are even more complex than that. There just isn't one globalization, whoever says this is claiming that only one country's attempt matters.

Since you have a competition for hegemony, it means your platonic ideal of what a globalized society is supposed to look like isn't shared by the next global power engaged in the penis size contest.

Fixed.

>conservative
>Green Party

A lot of those party alignments are all fucked. The Sweden democrats are only conservative with their immigration policies. Otherwise they advocate even higher welfare than Sweden currently have. They're social democratic at their core, even though they call themselves social conservative for some reason. The greens aren't even CLOSE to conservative, I don't know how anyone would get that idea.

Sweden being so off leads me to think that the others might be too.

By realizing there are several different Muhammads because his life and views have been concocted out of some core story we can't discern from the myth anymore, and that the violent warlord Muhammad groups like ISIS follows is different from the forward thinking reformer Muhammad more liberal Muslims follow just as he is different from the social conservative Muhammad fundamentalists follow.

But who organized those attacks.


Beyond assimilation of Muslims, Western society is increasingly incompatible with any form of fundamentalist theology

Social conservative is not mutually exclusive with being social democratic, at least with how the term is used in Sweden.

Among other things they want Christianity to take a bigger role so they are definitely social conservatives. Their slogan is literally "Security and Tradition".

Except they're not there because of the "general xenophobic attitude of your country's people"

They're there because they choose to be there around their own people

Well Conseratives aren't a hivemind and depend where and when they live in
So its not really a wonder that Swedish conseratives don't have the same values as the more Christian Eastern Euro or vice vesra

>Why would they want to settle in a white community when there is a 95% muslim community where they don't have to learn the language as fast, or get accustomed to the new culture

Then why bother immigrating in the first place? The issue with these communities is that they never begin to assimilate. When they reach a critical mass they begin to advocate for the same broken ideology that they were running away from in the first place. There is no 'melting pot' effect.

Xenophobic attitudes are inherent. It is evident that people enjoy living in homogeneous communities. Isn't it a simpler solution to remain separate, rather than trying mix people ideologies that clearly don't mesh?

Been when have Muslims ever assimilated peacefully in large numbers?