politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It can be both
That'd imply that secular countries in the region are better, which is clearly not the case. Baathist Iraq and Syria were explicitly secular, and as is Egypt which also happens to be a police state under a military dictatorship. Israel also managed to keep religious fanatics outside of government for most of its history, yet the horrors of Zionism progressed unimpeded (see: the Nakba). "Religion bad" as a framework for understanding the current state of the Middle East, aside from falling apart when you think about it for five seconds, is deeply colonial thinking. It seeks to push the blame for the terrible events that have plagued the region on religion or culture or a non-existent history of instability rather than active choices by global hegemons seeking to further their imperialist agendas.
They aren't saying "religion bad", that's a strawman. The sentiment is that theocracies are bad, which seems pretty obvious. In much the same way police states are bad; there has never been a theocratic regime that hasn't used their power to oppress other religions.
Theocracies oppress religious minorities in much the way ethnostates oppress ethnic minorities, and patriarchies oppress women and gender minorities. We don't need to structure the state around religion like that, it's a recipe for disaster.
But then they claim that "The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control." If the sentiment is that theocracies are bad, then that would imply that the whole region is governed by either de jure or de facto theocracies. That's factually untrue, so we're back where we started.
I would clarify my point. It's not that religion needs to be in control, it's that religion's power over society is used by whomever is in power to control people.
Religion is still used by those powers to control people, even if the government is not overtly religious.
Religion's power over society is easily co-opted by those with power.
I agree it's far from the only factor, but it is one that prevents a path to peace and the one that many people avoid confronting because of the taboo against criticising religion.
Religion does not need to be in control of the government for it to be used to control people.
Look how republicans co-opted Christianity to get leaders like Bush and Trump in power.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Religion is the tool used by oppressors to get normal people to tolerate and do terrible things.
To clarify my earlier point, you need to break Religion's power over society, in order to make the society resistant to following those types of leaders.
Being Jewish is also an ethnicity so this is a moot point.
Where? In most of the Middle East religion is tightly controlled or outright suppressed by authorities, with Islamists overwhelmingly being political opposition rather than pro-regime. The Islam people are almost invariably not happy with how their countries are run, which is why any anti-authoritarian resistance in the region invariably has significant Islamist presence.
Note that when I say Islam, I am referring to the religion, not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist. Much like Orthodox and Catholic are distinct cultural grouping, but both are still part of the Christian religion.
Similarly when I refer to Judaism, I am referring to the religion, not the culture referred to as the Jews.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion's effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
It's not just islam. Look of christian evangelism has been leveraged by the republican party in the US. Look how Catholicism is used by the right wing in Poland.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough. Just like the far right evangelical Christians supporting the Jewish occupation of Gaza, becuase they want to end of the world to happen.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes. Countires who have had them creep back in, like in the USA are getting much worse.
That's... not what those words mean. Muslim = someone who follows in Islam, Islamist = someone who believes in political Islam. Islamist is a subcategory of Muslim, not a group distinct of it.
Again, where is this happening? Give me examples with sources of this supposed region-wide phenomenon.
This is completely untrue. See: Egypt, where the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil and political rights at the same time it's cracking down on expressions of Islam.
Again, not true. Many major Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have explicitly pro-democracy lines.
That's not really true (see Malaysia for example), but it also has absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.
I take you point on Language being important. A lot of things get misunderstood due to different definitions in different circles. I don't disagree with the definition as you explained it
In terms of human rights, you only need to look at the correlation between level of religion in a country vs the personal freedoms. There is also a distinction between what the laws in a country prosecutes and what society prosecutes. Child marriage and arranged child marriage is one example. most countries make it illegal, but its still very common is highly religious societies.
collapsed inline media
Another example is Woman's rights:
collapsed inline media
collapsed inline media
I don't have enough specific knowledge about what is happening in Egypt right now. What I would expect to see is a similar pattern of other countries in the world after regime changes. One religious group uses their influence in the government to crack down on other religious groups. or the Government uses one group to go after another group to keep people divided and focused on each-other, rather than against the government. Something like what we saw happen in Iraq under and after Saddam, Northern Ireland, Balkans.
In terms of examples of countries economic outcomes, the economic picture is less clear cut because of a lot of factors, so you need to isolate as best you can for those. You could equally compare look at Europe, point a Greece and say its an example of Europe weak economy. Best to look at the region overall. So using the Malaysia example, you also need to look at the region including Thailand, Indonesia, to compare those examples. The de-fanging example I had in mind, was the fall of religious monarchies in Europe resulting in the renaissance. Individual rights and economic prosperity for the average person only really started in Europe when the people became less religious and their Monarchies lost power. You could say the same thing for places like Japan and its Emperors.
You're making zero sense so I'm going to disengage after this. You should consider learning things.
That has fucking nothing to do with what we're talking about. I want examples of Islam being a clear and active component in the rolling back of civil rights across a wide area of the Middle East. You said "Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights" and "it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions" and have so far completely failed to back up that statement. If you can't then say you can't and stop moving the goalposts. Also hell, look at your maps first. Child marriage is, according to your own data, rare in most of the Middle East. You mean to tell me Christian Spain and Britain are child-marrying shitholes compared to the secular utopias of Libya and Algeria? Fucking... dude.
No, no and no. How about you learn instead of expect?
I thought it was only the Middle East, but you need to brush up on European history too. The "fall of religious monarchies in Europe" starts with the French Revolution, a little under four centuries after the start of the renaissance. The renaissance from start to end coexisted with monarchical rule by divine right.
That makes no sense. For one, Thailand doesn't even follow the same religion as Malaysia and Indonesia. For another, if your thesis is correct, it should apply to individual countries too, not just regions, so you should be able to explain how Islam is holding back Malaysia. For a third, this still has nothing to do with your initial claim.
Unless you mean to tell me your average 18th to 19th century Englishman wasn't highly religious, no.
Huh?! It was Emperor Meiji who brought Japan to the modern era what are you even fucking smoking? You are way out of your depth here. Seriously. Also your inability or unwillingness to consider the impact of colonialism and imperialism here will prevent you from ever reaching a worthwhile conclusion on the subject.
Yeah, I was pulling the conversation all over. Apologies for that.
Getting back to the original points, I agree with you that Colonialism and imperialism are major factors to the current situation in Palestine.
The original point I was making is that religion is being used to perpetuate the conflict and makes the populations vulnerable to manipulation. Something that is used to perpetuate oppression around the world.
If "all of it" stems from one thing, it can't "all of it" stem from another thing. I'm not arguing for either, I'm just uppity about logic.
Of course it can—why do you think something can't have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.
That's kind of what the word "stem" means, both literally and figuratively.
Some definitions include the word "main"... and many definitions don't. So actually I don't see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.
The "stem" is the thing itself, not the thing it stems from. A stem can't come from two places.
Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn't hold.
That... doesn't address my claim at all. A plant can have a million stems, if you wish. We're taking about a single stem, which comes from somewhere. If all of it comes from one place, it cannot also come from another.
No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn't what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.
Oh, buddy. You're in the wrong stem of this conversation. I said in my very first comment that I had no interest in being a part of the actual discussion and I was just complaining about the phrasing used. If you wanted to be part of the actual conversation, you should have picked literally any other comment to reply to.
What I'm saying is, you went to a court house and starting arguing your case to the hobo sleeping on the steps. Can't say that's on the hobo.