Caliph Donald Trump and The Rise of the Christian Taliban

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Imagine the reaction if congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the U.S. congress, proclaimed that he is a Muslim first and American second? How about other Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu leaders stating that they are working to establish the Sharia law, the law of Moses or Gita in the United States? Yet the current administration is doing exactly that: establishing a theocracy based on ultra conservative Christian beliefs. But few people are as alarmed as they should be.

To read more:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/06/caliph-donald-trump-qnd-the-rise-of-the-christian-taliban/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49

[marylandblue]

1. And you wonder why atheists have a negative view of religion?

Religion more often props up a tyrannical government than protects the people from it. Sure there are exceptions, but what the Christian Taliban are trying to do right now has already been done many times in the past.

[guillaumeb]

3. But the overwhelming majority of theists do not, in fact,

persecute others who hold different beliefs. Nor do they start wars in the name of religion, or country, or politics.

That is done by a very small percentage of people who are obsessed with power. Sometimes those people are religious leaders, sometimes they are political leaders, sometimes they are both.

In China, the atheists in charge are persecuting theists and others who they see as possibly disruptive to their own power.

Those in power will use organized religion if they can, or the state religion if no organized religion exists. It is about co-opting the currently existing power centers to the service of the leader.

[marylandblue]

7. Historically, they often have

Until the Enlightenment, religious intolerance was the norm. Even in the USA, anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism was accepted until after WWII. Today we are see a resurgence of anti-Semitism and new anti-Muslim feelings. Is this an anomaly or reversion to historic norms? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.

[guillaumeb]

8. Intolerance of "the other" is the norm.

An aspect of tribalism, which is itself a survival mechanism. Religion is often, but not always a component.

[marylandblue]

11. Tribalism does not imply intolerance

Some hunter gatherer societies have never known war.

[guillaumeb]

13. They are exceptions.

And mankind was moving into cities as early as the Neolithic age, 13,000 years or so in the past.

[marylandblue]

17. Good chance were not exceptions prior to the Neolithic

Even among warlike tribes, war is infrequent and short compared to post-Neolithic.

And it doesn't matter if they are exception. It means something other than tribalism causes war and intolerance.

[guillaumeb]

18. Bring back the Neo-neolithic Age?

THAT would take some planning.

[marylandblue]

21. End war. It happened in some societies before, it can again.

Religion is just another thing to fight over. It's not like fighting over food or water.

[guillaumeb]

23. Follow up question?

Regarding the "end war" part of it.


We can agree on what a solution might look like, but the measure of a plan is how it works.

[marylandblue]

27. The best we've done so far is promote rational egalitarian societies,

so I'd say we should do more of that. I'd expect in such a society, religion would have a diminished role, but some people still might be religious.

[guillaumeb]

38. Even in rational egalitarian societies,

and I am thinking specifically of Canada, intolerance still arises.

[marylandblue]

40. Key words are "So Far"

Canada is better than the US in many respects, but it is not as good as it could be.

[guillaumeb]

42. No, it is and was not.

First Peoples were generally treated as second class citizens.

[marylandblue]

43. Huh? Do you have some better idea for the future?

Or are we doomed to bash each other's head in forever? Doesn't sound like something Jesus thought.

[guillaumeb]

45. When you say "we", if you are speaking of all humans,

I would say that progress is being made, but not fast enough in my view.

The US generally uses its military to get what it wants. Diplomacy is not the preferred option. But constant war reinforces the perceived need for the largest military.


Before the US, it was other colonial powers.

How does one separate the toxic aspects of tribalism from the beneficial aspects?

[marylandblue]

48. If your tribe is all humanity, then you have nobody to fight with

[guillaumeb]

50. Tribalism does not work in that way.

Look at the EU. A group of modern countries that cannot work together very well or for very long.

I wish that I had an answer.

[marylandblue]

51. Then you are not talking about tribalism at all

You are talking about the "Concept of the Political" as described by Carl Schmitt, who said, "Man needs an enemy." But I don't agree with that. Maybe some people need an enemy, but I don't and many others don't. And if many don't need an enemy, then the rest can learn it.

[guillaumeb]

60. Tribalism pits the tribe against "the other".

Nationalism is tribalism.

Can we unlearn tribalism? Perhaps.

[marylandblue]

63. Tribalism or Nationalism does not do that for me.

Does it do that for you. It would be interesting if it did.

[guillaumeb]

64. It does it for most people.

It is used to motivate.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. Says who?

And what do you mean by "it is used"?

And how do you know it is innate?

And how in the name of Zeus' olympian butthole do you reconcile this obviously deterministic position with your belief in free will? I've asked this question several times now, but your interest in answering seems inversely proportional to the enthusiasm you show for posting its basic premises.

[guillaumeb]

69. Be more specific.

I am confused by your 2 questions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. You mean four questions.

1) How do you know nationalism/tribalism motivates "most people"? Cite your sources.

2) What do you mean when you say tribalism/nationalism is used to motivate people? Are you saying "to use" as a conscious and deliberate act? If so, how do you know this is the case? Cite your sources.

3) How do you know nationalism/tribalism is innate, i.e., human nature? Cite your sources.

4) How do you reconcile the obviously deterministic position you're taking re: tribalism/nationalism, with your previous assertion that kids die of bone cancer because free will? Trust me, we're all very interested to hear this one.

[guillaumeb]

73. 1) My opinion, based on my reading of history.

2) My opinion, based on my reading of history.

3) Where did I claim that it is innate?

4) Not a question, but a repeat of an accusation made by some few here.

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. In summary:

1) So you're bullshitting.

2) So you're bullshitting.

3) Clarification: Everywhere you said the word "human" followed by either the word "condition" or the word "nature" or any of their derivatives.

4) Clarification: The question mark indicates an interrogative. You have previously stated your belief in free will, and previously stated you believe certain behaviors to be "human nature". These beliefs are incompatible. I am asking you to reconcile them, i.e. explain that they aren't contradictory, explain your views have changed, or explain that you've been miscommunicating for a very long time now.

[guillaumeb]

78. In summary:

1 and 2) You refuse to recognize that people have opinions. Feel free to present your alternative view that explains all of human history.

3) You made a specific claim that you cannot support.

4) Old argument, old claim, and nothing will be solved no matter what is said.

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. Or not

I recognize people have opinions. I have opinions, too. I also recognize the limitations of my opinions and rarely present them so matter-of-factly. I do not pretend to know what is and what is not in human nature, nor do I have any idea whether or not people in power consciously exploit this nature or are simply prey to it as well. I have my suspicions, but I doubt their usefulness.

Oh yea, there's this, for a start: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288635

Mull it over and get back to us. I'm sure a cogent retort is forthcoming.

[trotsky]

34. #Whataboutism n/t

[trotsky]

33. "the overwhelming majority"

I don't think you understand what that phrase means.

Because if you did, you wouldn't have used it to describe a population that voted *overwhelmingly* for Donald Trump.

[Voltaire2]

2. Is this your good gods or your bad gods doing?

[guillaumeb]

4. This is the doing of Donald Trump and the leaders

of the GOP. Unless, of course, you do not believe in the concept of personal responsibility.

[Voltaire2]

5. So the bad stuff is just humans and the good stuff

is stuff your god’s had a hand in?

[guillaumeb]

6. The bad stuff that humans do is humans behaving like humans.

So is the good stuff that they do.

My conclusion: humans are imperfect.

[Voltaire2]

9. Ah so your gods have nothing to do with it.

Great. So religion, a human construct, is doing horrible shit all over the world, and sometimes a bit of good stuff too. Should we weigh it up and figure out if on balance religion is basically f’ing horrible?

Better not, huh?

[guillaumeb]

10. Are humans basically horrible?

Or are they also capable of doing good things?

Is human society basically horrible?

If you expect perfection, you will always be disappointed.

[marylandblue]

12. I expect something that claims to be THE source of morality

to actually act moral.

[guillaumeb]

15. But the actual actors are humans.

Leading directly back to my previous question.

[marylandblue]

19. Then how do you decide what's horrible?

[guillaumeb]

20. I use "do unto others" as a baseline.

Or do no harm, and other similar ideas.


The question for me would be:
how do we keep those who would dominate others from power?

[marylandblue]

22. One way is not to allow your religion to be misused.

[guillaumeb]

24. It is the desired outcome, and we theists should try,

but again, we are dealing with imperfect humans.

[marylandblue]

28. One way is to speak for your religion

I know you don't like doing that, but other Christians, particularly the most intolerant ones, have no trouble at all with it. Puts you at a disadvantage.

[trotsky]

35. Gil believes there are more important things he needs to do.

Trying to silence atheist voices on DU, for instance.

[guillaumeb]

39. I can only speak for my religion.

I can speak to my positions, and I can also justify them with the words of Jesus, and try to influence others.

[marylandblue]

44. This is the first I have heard you say you can speak for a religion, not just yourself.

Unless you mean Guillaumbism, a small Christian sect, rather than Christianity as a whole.

[guillaumeb]

46. I said "my religion",

meaning my own interpretation.

[marylandblue]

47. Then like I said, it puts you at a disadvantage

Since so many other Christians have no problem speaking for all.

[guillaumeb]

49. I agree, and the loudest voices get the most attention. eom

[Mariana]

52. Gil's particular flavor of Christianity is rather unique, from what he has told us here.

Very few Christians babble on about some generic sparky "creator" who (figuratively) zap-poofed the universe into existence, and very few Christians believe that the entirety of Christ's message can be expressed in one sentence. It is a very small sect indeed.

Of course, he may be having us on, and really belongs to a denomination with doctrines that are much more clearly defined.

[marylandblue]

54. Guillaumebism it is then.

Sort of like Gnosticism, which is full of mysteries and had an unknown number of followers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. If religion can't even help it's own adherents overcome their basal nature...

...then what good is it?

[Voltaire2]

31. This thread featured The Big Ass Shovel.

A miracle of deep hole digging has occurred.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. The DU Superdeep Borehole

Fun fact: The deepest artificial point on Earth is the Kola Superdeep Borehole. Soviet scientists drilled to around 40,000 ft. deep before the dissolution of the Soviet Union caused the project's dissolution.

Another fun fact: In the US, Christians told congregants the Russians had drilled so deep they'd reached Hell. They even released an audio recording of the souls of the damned wailing and gnashing their teeth... which turned out to be an edited loop from the B-movie Baron Blood.

[trotsky]

36. I'm sure a well-constructed, reasoned argument will be coming your way soon.

HAHAHHAHAAh

Oh who am I kidding?

[guillaumeb]

41. Allow me to refrmae your question:

If democracy can't even help it's own adherents overcome their basal nature...then what good is it?

I say this not to avoid your point, but because we are always dealing with imperfect humans. I never expect perfection, or even close to perfection. It is not in human nature.

[Voltaire2]

56. We need a system of government.

Representative democracy appears to be the best we can do. It also might be in a crisis at the current time and it might be the case that it is going to prove to be a failure.

But we don’t need organized religion. Instead organized religion is being used as one of the tools to destroy representative democracy and usher in a new era of fascism.

The role of religion in the destruction of democratic institutions is one of the reasons why religion, on balance, is f’ing horrible.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[guillaumeb]

62. We need a system of government where money has no voice.

Is it possible?

[marylandblue]

66. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good

A vice you often accuse others of.

[guillaumeb]

70. No, I am posing a proposition.

Prior to Citizens United, money was not speech.

[marylandblue]

74. Citizen United did not create the Christian Taliban

It's been a growing problem since the Moral Majority was founded.

[guillaumeb]

75. Christian intolerance has always existed in the US.

400 plus years.

[marylandblue]

81. Thanks for making my point stronger.

[guillaumeb]

82. Simply history. eom

[marylandblue]

83. Goes back to my post #1, we have come full circle

[guillaumeb]

90. Time to go around the track again? eom

[marylandblue]

94. I'd rather not, perhaps you can come up with a better answer?

Maybe one that doesn't point out that Christian intolerance has been such a negative force in our country's entire history.

[guillaumeb]

95. Christian intolerance is a fact.

As is intolerance based on many other factors. But Christians also fueled (in part) the abolition movement, and the Poor Peoples' Movement of Dr. King, and the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement of the 1960s, and the liberation theology of Latin America, and the current Poor Peoples' Movement of Reverends Barber and Theoharis.


In my area of Illinois, Father Pfleger, a Catholic priest, has been a large force in social justice fights since the 1970s.

[marylandblue]

98. Christians fueled movements to undo the wrongs Christians created in the first place

And you missed the point of my comment. You wonder why atheists have a negative view of religion. You admit the wrongs, but point to a different bogeyman, claiming that the other bogeyman is "human nature" and therefore fouls all things, yet you also point to good things, which are apparently not thereby fouled. Is the only argument between you an atheists about who the bogeyman is?

[guillaumeb]

99. The problem is human intolerance.

We can argue about the claimed motivation, or attempt to rank things that promote intolerance, but in the end, it is humans being typically intolerant of other humans.

I do not wonder why some atheists have a negative view of theists, just as I do not wonder why some theists have a negative view of atheists.


Humans, all humans, in my view, are a mixture of positives and negatives. We accept that and move on.

[marylandblue]

100. You skip right over the most interesting things, and take them as given

Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2018, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Sometimes you refer to anthropology, but anthropology does not take "human nature" as having invariant characteristics. Instead we find an astonishing variety of cultural difference and attitudes. Intolerance is not a given. It varies greatly from person to person and culture to culture. You say that cultures that have never known war are "exceptions." But what makes them so? It's something about the conditions in their society. If we learn what it is, maybe we can bring an updated version to modern times. Isn't that what being a progressive is about? To make the world better, and NOT take something as given just because it has always been?

[guillaumeb]

103. I did not claim that every human is equally intolerant,

nor did I make the claim for every society. But as a general rule, intolerance seems to be a part of tribalism.


As to societies that seem to be without war and intolerance, they are the exception.

[marylandblue]

108. Woooshhh!

[Voltaire2]

67. I'm missing what that has to do with religion.

[trotsky]

57. #Whataboutism n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. We've been over this.

Does democracy make people perfect? No. Does serve a purpose besides making people perfect? Yes.

Without making people better, what does religion have going for it? What other purpose does it serve? Can that purpose be served by anything else? If so, why is religion preferrable?

And what's this shit about "human nature"? Don't you believe in free will?

[Voltaire2]

14. Religion, a human construct, can be used

to motivate both good and bad acts. On balance it appears to me that it primarily motivates horrible behavior.

But at least we agree that gods have nothing at all to do with it.

[guillaumeb]

16. Deities do not fight on earth.

Deities do not vote. Humans do so. We must each take responsibility for what we each do.

[Voltaire2]

25. Yes fine. Now about religion....

[guillaumeb]

26. Yes, this is about religion.

And how imperfect humans generally exhibit that imperfection in their actions and interactions.

[Voltaire2]

29. And yet you keep eliminating religion.

[trotsky]

37. It's a mystery why he even bothers to post in the Religion group.

Since nothing is about religion.

[Lordquinton]

53. That was weirdly Islamophobic

and completely devoid of any real cohesion or content.

More properly Pope trump, and cardinal Sessions, et al.

[Voltaire2]

55. It's ok to shit on Islam.

Just not whatever gil’s Religion is.

Does the Taliban have Caliphs?

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. They do.

The supreme leader of the Taliban is given the title "Amir al-Mu'minin", "amir" being analogous "caliph".

[marylandblue]

84. Amir is more like a general, governor or a prince

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2018, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The caliph is head of all Islam. The leader of the Taliban did not take the title of caliph, the leader of ISIS did.

[Voltaire2]

86. Yeah I didn't think the Taliban had caliphs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

87. Amir al-Mu'minin translates to "Commander of the Faithful"

You could argue that the Taliban never claimed religious authority over Muslims outside its territory, but since no Caliph has ever actually had authority over people outside their territory, I would argue this is a distinction without a difference. The Caliph is an absolute spiritual and political ruler. The Amir al-Mu'minin is an absolute spiritual and political ruler.

[marylandblue]

88. Different words, different meanings

Calling yourself Caliph says something about your ambitions. It is deliberately provocative in a way Amir is not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

89. Perhaps.

But in the context of this story?

I think the point is Trump fancies himself strongman. As to what strongman we're using as a point of comparison, I don't see a need to be overly specific.

[guillaumeb]

61. The title was deliberately provocative.

But the actual article has no hint of Islamophobia.

[Voltaire2]

68. So it is ok to shit on somebody else's religion

as long as it is only the title?

[guillaumeb]

71. Read the second sentence of my reply.

And read the entire article.

After doing so, please point specific examples of the Islamophobia that you so freely allege.

[Voltaire2]

85. If Christians are really awful they become Muslims.

You don’t see anything even slightly Islamophobic about that?

[guillaumeb]

91. Justify that interpretation,

using my words. You accused me.

[Voltaire2]

92. It is the headline of the op you posted.

[guillaumeb]

93. Your words:

55. It's ok to shit on Islam.

Just not whatever gil’s Religion is.

Does the Taliban have Caliphs?

The language is crude, and obviously metaphoric, but there is no evidence to support your various assertions.

[Voltaire2]

96. I agree you just completely diverted away

from the Islamophobic headline of your op. I understand.

[guillaumeb]

97. If you understood,

you would not have made your claim.

[Voltaire2]

102. So I'm an idiot and a headline that clearly

implies that if christians behave badly enough they become muslims is not Islamophobic. Is that your position?

[guillaumeb]

104. Refer back to my previous post.

[Voltaire2]

105. Consider why you didn't see that your

op you posted was blatantly Islamophobic.

[guillaumeb]

106. Consider why you are determined to find it so. eom

[Lordquinton]

101. It echoes the title

and really doesn't contain anything, except a link to a video which goes hard on the same brand of islamophobia. If it was a title to bring attention to the threat of creeping theocracy that would be fine, but it just goes on a list of people calling them muslim clerical titles and using various buzz words. It plays on people's islamophobia in the same way, like it legitimises the view that the right has been pushing.

I understand what they tried to do, but they missed their mark.

[guillaumeb]

107. We disagree.

I read a post from a Muslim positing how words are used to define. I read a post where the same terms used, incorrectly, to frame all Muslims could be used against Christian theocrats.

[CrispyQ]

77. "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges

Every democratic seat holder should have read that book when it came out.

[guillaumeb]

79. I have never read it.

Feel free to summarize.

I will check it out.