Should people feel shame for the deeds of their ancestors?

[.45 Dave]

You know, one thing people never think about: If you go far enough back in time it is very likely that everyone had ancestors who were slaves at one time or another. Slavery didn't begin with white people and it didn't end with the civil war either. It is going on today in different parts of the world. Where's the outcry against it? But no, we have to keep bringing up again and again here in America as if it were still continuing here today. Sorry, Americans didn't have the only franchise on slavery and not even the latest one at that!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have some regrets about this poll as it did not turn out like I thought. I thought as strongly as some have pushed back at me that people would own their point of view. Ironically, I didn't think making it public would actually shame people into withholding their vote.

I strongly believed that there is a class of people who just won't be "identity" shamed, and there's a class of people who just, maybe naturally, feel some sense of responsibility. I guess because of identity. I understand the former, because I'm in that class. I know exactly why I won't be shamed for something I didn't do. Maybe it's personality. It would be interesting to ask this question and correlate to people's myers-briggs score. Maybe the split is in the thinking/feeling types.

Anyway, bottom line, I want to understand why America is so easily shamed into conformance. I want to know why people are so afraid to hoist their middle fingers at the shamers. I think the people who feel this "identity shame" are the most vulnerable to the tyranny-by-shame trend.

Well they were. In fact, more than a couple voted the opposite. I learned a while back to stop making polls public. As obtuse as I am, I decided to go back and check out the "not ashamed" crowd's previous posts, and needless to say... well let's just say that they are inconsistent, or maybe recently have changed their opinions. I was going to post their previous statements and take them to task.... but meh, not that deep.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Okayfine. Then my origianal point about it stands, that Muslims who don't support terrorism shouldn't feel shame just because other Muslims support terrorism. Or did you not notice that I didn't say that Muslims silent about terrorism should feel shame for it. IIRC, I said that is not tacit support.

Your soapbox is unnecessary. I'm not condemning all Muslims. Just the ****ty ones. I don't condemn all Christians. Just the ****ty ones. Here's how I define the ****ty ones: I don't give a **** what you believe. Belief is the ultimate form of individual sovereignty. As long as you don't believe you must do harm to me or hinder my rights as a tenet of your belief, believe what you wish. But if you believe that god wants you to cut off my head, you're one of the ****ty ones.

You aren't the only one posting in this thread, either. I am addressing points you made and points Indydave made as well, I tried to lump each under the appropriate quote.

I addressed him with the "tacit support". I addressed you with the "Muslims aren't doing anything like Christians do."

Muslims are treated with a fair different standard than other religions. Nobody uses quotes around "peaceful" when talking about Buddhists, yet obviously there are violent Buddhists killing and rioting based on religion. According to many on INGO the Pope doesn't reflect the beliefs of Catholics. The Pope. Apparently not Catholic enough. Yet one Nidal Hassan becomes millions of Muslims.

Some people forget when they talk about groups of people they actually are people. Real people. Let's bring it home a bit. If you want to talk about "Muslims" remember you're talking about me. You're talking about my wife. You're talking about my friends. Not some alien non-humans. I'd like to know what Indydave believes I support because I'm not going to change my religion. I'd like to know what he believes my wife supports. I'd like to know what exactly you think I should do and how much of my life I should dedicate to it to be as good at "doing something about it" as other religions are, and if my burden is the same as Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc.

How angry would you be if you saw calls for you to be reeducated, that you should be barred from military service despite having honorably served, if I implied your wife supported terrorism if she didn't change her religion, etc? All things I've seen on INGO, if not in this thread. Does that fill you with joy?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ill just ask this. Are you ashamed of the actions of our president? Because of course, I'd find it odd, that based on this poll, one would be ashamed of a person who, probably none of us has met, nor have any personal relation to.

 

[BugI02]

..

 

[jamil]

Ill just ask this. Are you ashamed of the actions of our president? Because of course, I'd find it odd, that based on this poll, one would be ashamed of a person who, probably none of us has met, nor have any personal relation to.

I'm not ashamed of this president. But I am pissed at him for what he's done. The shame should be on him. Not me.

 

[eric001]

Personal Responsibility.
I can legitimately feel proud of MY accomplishments, or shame for MY foul-ups. It seems pointless to me that I should somehow be responsible for what others have done, good or bad. If I had nothing to do with what they did, why in the world should I try to take responsibility for it??? Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[BugI02]

BBI first and foremost I owe you an apology, and this is it. I was attempting to stand the argument that America should not be blamed for the actions of 'unscrupulous individuals' on its head to demonstrate that exemption was likely too broad. I'm the one who brought Islam into the discussion and it was a poor choice. I reached for an easy example, that I knew many on INGO would not give the same leeway, in order to prove the point. I am guilty as accused of not thinking about the real people that the overbroad term represents. This is not the only time I have been insensitive and likely will not be the last. No one should hesitate to call me on it. I know its probably cold comfort, akin to making you an exception to the general opinion of muslims, but I for one believe from your posts that I have read and a few exchanges we have had that you are a cool dude. I believe to try to live righteously and treat others with the respect you would wish to receive from them. And you are in a job that makes that a formidable undertaking. My apologies for piling on.

Lou

 

[jamil]

Well they were. In fact, more than a couple voted the opposite. I learned a while back to stop making polls public. As obtuse as I am, I decided to go back and check out the "not ashamed" crowd's previous posts, and needless to say... well let's just say that they are inconsistent, or maybe recently have changed their opinions. I was going to post their previous statements and take them to task.... but meh, not that deep.

Eh, some people have made some excellent points and I wouldn't doubt that some could have changed their position. Or, maybe it's that people vulnerable to feeling shame felt shamed into voting opposite their real belief. But I do regret making the poll public.

 

[jamil]

BBI exemplified my point. Instead of being shamed for the evil some muslims are doing he pushed back and demonstrated that they are not him, and are not all muslims, and that there has been plenty of evil done in the name of other religions.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You aren't the only one posting in this thread, either. I am addressing points you made and points Indydave made as well, I tried to lump each under the appropriate quote.

I addressed him with the "tacit support". I addressed you with the "Muslims aren't doing anything like Christians do."

Muslims are treated with a fair different standard than other religions. Nobody uses quotes around "peaceful" when talking about Buddhists, yet obviously there are violent Buddhists killing and rioting based on religion. According to many on INGO the Pope doesn't reflect the beliefs of Catholics. The Pope. Apparently not Catholic enough. Yet one Nidal Hassan becomes millions of Muslims.

Some people forget when they talk about groups of people they actually are people. Real people. Let's bring it home a bit. If you want to talk about "Muslims" remember you're talking about me. You're talking about my wife. You're talking about my friends. Not some alien non-humans. I'd like to know what Indydave believes I support because I'm not going to change my religion. I'd like to know what he believes my wife supports. I'd like to know what exactly you think I should do and how much of my life I should dedicate to it to be as good at "doing something about it" as other religions are, and if my burden is the same as Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc.

How angry would you be if you saw calls for you to be reeducated, that you should be barred from military service despite having honorably served, if I implied your wife supported terrorism if she didn't change her religion, etc? All things I've seen on INGO, if not in this thread. Does that fill you with joy?

OK, first things first. I probably should be careful about posting when I am already in a bad mood much in the same way some others really shouldn't post when they have been drinking. I will accept blame for being unnecessarily harsh.

Now, I am going to take a step back and address a few issues:

1. Whenever a group is treated as being above reproach, it tends to cause distrust, especially when Ray Charles could see that there is reproach in the picture. An honest discussion can be far more productive than simply protesting that numerous subgroups are aberrant, or worse yet blanket denial in spite of clear evidence. This also fosters the perception of a faceless monolithic bloc rather than a perception of individuals.

2. For good or for ill, a scant few have become the public face of Islam in America with CAIR coming to mind at the top of the list. Some of their ties as well as their propensity for using denial and dismissal as a tool for controlling problem situations does not help the cause. Their ties with known terrorist organizations doesn't help either.

3. Major Hassan is a good example of a major problem issue. A little honesty goes a long way. The 'workplace violence' tripe serves little purpose other than to erode one's ability to believe in a broader concept when the example at hand has more falsehood than Planters has nuts. Dismissing his actions as 'workplace violence' was a hindrance, not a help. By contrast, I could demonstrate quite a few doctrinal violations with our neighbors from Westboro.

4. Speaking of Westboro, yes, I readily dismiss them as not practicing Christianity, but this is followed with an explanation for those needing it rather than simple dismissal. Also, it would be a much harder thing to address had Christ and followers protested in Jerusalem with placards declaring 'God hates Fags'.

5. Is there going to be an Islamic Reformation? After all, when the Pope & Co. got too far out of line, there was a very strong response. Same thing with the Church of England at roughly the same time. The resulting events shook up the world. I will point out that this only worked because those participating in various subsets of the Reformation were following scripture to the best of their abilities and Rome had forgotten what scripture was. Otherwise, they would have been using the scripture as source material to start their own new religion, which is one of my principal arguments against professing Christians who want to pick and choose (with allowance for things that God adjusted over time, usually in form of tightening the limits) from scripture. They are in truth inventing their own religion. Turning back to Islam, where do we draw the line between what is and isn't Islam? Am I to accept that Mohammad's example is obsolete and irrelevant? Can someone point me to an Islamic reformation movement with some openly declared doctrines? How am I supposed to approach any of this without doubt given that the Quran allows for deceit for the purpose of furthering Islam?

6. As for the silent majority of Moslems I am supposed to believe in who are peaceful good neighbors, my questions regarding tacit approval would probably be more easily addressed if some of these people would speak about their faith the same way I would. I am inclined to find more value in a good explanation of how Islam is in fact peaceful than simple condemnation of unacceptable acts.

7. When I look around the world, I see that Iraq, Syria (at least before ISIS), Jordan, and the UAE were generally tolerant of practitioners of other religions, at least nationally. Egypt was until it wasn't. Saudi Arabia, post-revolution Iran, post-civil war Lebanon, Algeria, and most sub-Saharan countries were not such nice places to be anything other than a Moslem.

8. It doesn't do much for my willingness to believe when criticisms based on observation are held at the same level of rancor for discrimination as killing people when the shoe is on the other foot. I am sorry, but while Westboro may be a pack of a**holes, they aren't even in the same ZIP code with ISIS.

9. How does a modern peaceful Moslem fit into the history of Islam? Is it a matter of the interpretation/understanding of some evolving over time? I am not buying the argument that the Crusades establish Christianity as being just as bad as Jihadists. After all, the Crusades were a response to Islamic invasion, and besides which, the darker side of European conduct stood in harsh contrast with the example of Christ. On the other hand, to the best of my understanding, Mohammad was faithfully represented. More recently, the United States Navy was originally founded to fight Moslems, which seems a poor argument for being peaceful when someone has to build a navy in response to aggression. Back to my point, at what point did peacefulness enter Islam? Does this 'peace' work like the definition of peace offered by Yasser Arafat which amounted to the extermination of everyone who disagreed with him? If this isn't representative of Islam, it would be helpful for someone to speak up and explain how all of Islam's public representatives have it wrong.

Quite honestly, I would prefer to be able to believe that Islam is peaceful. I have enough to worry about from inside the Washington Beltway without adding more yet. I simply find myself confronted with a shortage of evidence. Another issue I see is that it is easier to understand people and ideas with whom/which you actually interact. The only time, several years ago, that I really interacted with a Moslem, it didn't have much impact at all one way or another. All I really know about him is that he was really meek and quiet in public in spite of having a reputation for being a tyrant at home and he was scared sh*tless of me for some reason when I tried to be friendly and regarding religion would have been happy to sip tea and compare notes. Maybe my sense of curiosity is diminishing with age, maybe I am just getting tired and temperamental. Of course this was shortly after 9/11 and we had not yet seen most everyone with a public platform doubling down on the issue, thus I hadn't reached the point of being fed up with it.

Most of my thoughts have been in response to the above-quoted post but really directed toward everyone.

Directed solely to BBI: Probably one of the more profound impacts that participating on INGO has had on me personally is restoring my belief in good police officers, and you played a significant part in that. You have really made me think about some things from a different and less detached perspective here as well such that for the first time in anything approaching recent memory I would consider it possible for the same thing to happen over again. No, I didn't start this post with this in mind. I have been working on it since shortly after you posted what I quoted and didn't see myself working this direction. Right now I have reached the point at which I am going to have to stop since my thoughts are getting too cluttered.

 

[jamil]

Dave, there's too much to address in that post. And some things I do agree with. But the thing that sticks out, you asked, "Back to my point, at what point did peacefulness enter Islam?"

As a casual observer, I can ask, at what point did peacefulness enter Christianity? Christian history is not filled with Matthew 25 type Christians. They are few and far between. And you can argue that the kind of Christians who did evil in Christ's name weren't exercising Christianity. But they thought they were. And at one point they represented a majority of Christians. And the people who believed as you were burned at the stake as heretics.

This is the point about religion. It is a personal matter of belief. It does not matter to Westboro what you think a Christian is. THEY believe they are the real Christians. It doesn't matter to ISIS what BBI thinks a Muslim is, to them, THEY are the real Muslims.

Westboro's viewpoint is in the far fringe of Christianity from what I see. When I look at ISIS's viewpoint as a portion of Islam, I just don't see that it's a majority view. It's not mainstream, but also I think currently it's not really in the fringe either, at least anymore. Peaceful Muslims must do something to contain that or it's just going to grow like cancer and overcome their religion.

And surely you believe there are peaceful Muslims. BBI's rant notwithstanding, I believe he is a peaceful man.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dave, there's too much to address in that post. And some things I do agree with. But the thing that sticks out, you asked, "Back to my point, at what point did peacefulness enter Islam?"

As a casual observer, I can ask, at what point did peacefulness enter Christianity? Christian history is not filled with Matthew 25 type Christians. They are few and far between. And you can argue that the kind of Christians who did evil in Christ's name weren't exercising Christianity. But they thought they were. And at one point they represented a majority of Christians. And the people who believed as you were burned at the stake as heretics.

This is the point about religion. It is a personal matter of belief. It does not matter to Westboro what you think a Christian is. THEY believe they are the real Christians. It doesn't matter to ISIS what BBI thinks a Muslim is, to them, THEY are the real Muslims.

Westboro's viewpoint is in the far fringe of Christianity from what I see. When I look at ISIS's viewpoint as a portion of Islam, I just don't see that it's a majority view. It's not mainstream, but also I think currently it's not really in the fringe either, at least anymore. Peaceful Muslims must do something to contain that or it's just going to grow like cancer and overcome their religion.

And surely you believe there are peaceful Muslims. BBI's rant notwithstanding, I believe he is a peaceful man.

I will rest on my standard position in this case so far as defining a religion for my purposes by the contents of its book and the deeds and exampleof its founder. Peacefulness entered Christianity with Christ Himself and remained that way at least up to the point of becoming the official Roman state religion. Westboro, in my reckoning, cannot be truthfully said to be Christians since they reject most core Christian doctrines. They accept the biblical definition of sin, but from there reject biblical doctrine on grace, salvation, repentance, and proper treatment of others. The most charitable thing I could say for them is that they have apparently developed their own new religion using the bible as source material. What they believe of themselves is apparently not supported by objective fact. Take this from another perspective: What if I were to call myself a socialist in spite of believing in individual liberty and responsibility, free markets, and limited government?

Within my understanding of Islam, I have not been given to categorically disbelieve that there is any such thing as a peaceful Moslem, but my understanding has been that they are not living up to the foundation of the faith as set by Mohammad. By contrast, ISIS seems to be as close a facsimile of the Islam of Mohammad as we have available. This leads to the next question: Are the more amiable examples evidence of an evolution which has not received attention outside of its own adherents? Is it a disingenuous claim made by people with an agenda? Has there been an Islamic Reformation that just hasn't become known? Has there been such a split for a very long time with the more obnoxious examples managing to be the public face of all Islam? I am not going to try to answer these questions right now. Everything I know about history tells me that there is nothing peaceful about Islam. At the same time, what BBI posted has struck home in a way that I had not anticipated so far as I trust him enough to venture into uncomfortable territory regarding the things I am willing to believe.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not going to break down every point and dispel every notion, but I'll see what I can do.

1) If you think Muslims are above reproach you haven't been attention. I see "reproach" quite a bit. The push back is often because the "reproach" is couched in terms exactly like they've been here. Kirk is ready to reeducate an entire religion, and that was back before we were allowed to talk about it. There will inevitably be push back when people feel like they are being attacked and lumped in with others.

2) I'm not going to be the 'face of Islam' either. Sorry.

3) People will make of it whatever they want and make hay for "their side". It's as irrelevant to me as the white kid who shot up a black church and "is he a real racist" is to you. You may be white, you aren't him. People can debate his motives, assign whatever values to him they want, and so what?

4) There is plenty of explanation, including in this thread, why people who murder noncombatants, mistreat prisoners of war, etc. are not following Islam.

5) There have been plenty, and there will be more. Islam is not a centralized religion like Catholicism. Islam is also set in a way to adapt, and has done so multiple times. The focus is on orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.

6) How many Muslims do you know? Do you seek them out to get their opinion, or do you assume they'll have access to the media in such a way to force you to hear their voice? In a few seconds with Google I posted a multitude of instances of Muslims not just speaking up, but risking their bodies, to protect others. In as nice a way as possible, how do you know what the 'average Muslim' thinks or says?

7) Yup. There are places were isn't not nice to be anything other than Buddhist, too. Or athiest. Or Black. Or white. There are also many places, modern and historical, that its absolutely fine to be non-Muslim in a Muslim ruled country. So is the issue the religion/race or is there underlying tensions that cause people to group into tribes?

8) Westboro is a bunch of clowns. Who says they are on the same level as ISIS? On a side note, who is primarily suffering at the hands of ISIS? Muslims. So do you think they are tacitly supporting ISIS while simultaneously being victimized by them? If you want examples of Christian terrorists, I can provide them, but so what? Does it become a game of "your team has bad guys too so my team gets a pass?" I'm not going to play that game. Good people are good people, and like it or not we're the same team in my eyes.

9) The Crusades were huge for the inhabitants, but it was a border war for Islam. It's the equivalent of the US fighting over a swatch of Puerto Rico. Sucks for the folks on the beach, the rest of the "empire" barely notices. It was not simply "Muslim V Christian", it was not an attempt to spread either religion, and it was not an incursion into the main body of either civilization. People of several religions fought on both sides, formed alliances, etc. It was a war of geography with religion used as a recruitment tool. The first casualties of the Crusades were Jews, slaughtered by Christians on their way to the Middle East. How does that square with the idea of Christianity as a peaceful religion? If you're interested, I'd recommend: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003C2SP6E?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage and perhaps found out how much more complicated it was for both sides. Like any war of the day, both sides committed atrocities, both sides showed clemency, both sides fragmented and leaders vied for power to the detriment of their own cause. The Mongols were a much greater threat to Islam, and conquered the majority of Islamic lands...and then converted. You don't hear much about that, though, despite it being more formative and on a much more epic scale.

You lack evidence because you don't look for it and aren't exposed to it. Imagine everything you knew about the US you learned based on political leaders and self proclaimed experts. Now imagine you "knew" that through the lens of Pravda. Remember to Cold War Russians we were the boogyman for exactly that reason. Yet most of us just went about our day, went to work, raised families, vacationed at the beach, and never gave Russia a thought for the most part. That's Islam today. I have some very real advantages over you in this regard. I lived in the Middle East for two years. If you like, I can post some pictures of Muslims being...ordinary. Going to Starbucks. Shopping at a mall. Driving to work. You know, regular non-warlike stuff. Just living their lives like you and me...because they are like you and me. They aren't plotting the downfall of the West or sharpening their knives to go hunt Christians or Jews, they are just living.

My sister-in-law is fairly conservative. She wears the head scarf, etc. You know her major concern right now? Her weight. She's "in love" with a boy she met on Facebook and wants to lose weight before they meet in person. Why? Because she's a girl in her early 20's, and that's what women her age worry about. My brother in law lost his job and shortly thereafter had to have surgery on his abdomen. His major worry was paying for medical care and finding a new job. Because that's what most any man in his position would do. He complains his daughters spend too much while he's out of work, they complain he's too worried about his prospects, then he found a new job (pharmacy rep, btw) and everyone is happy again. Why? Because he's normal. Would any of this make the news? Of course not. It's boring. So you don't know them, or the literally millions just like them. They exist, though, and they are real people. Maybe I should just start a thread of Muslims being normal, or treating me well during my travels? I don't know.

Here's my biggest problem. I convinced my wife to move to the US and she was afraid everyone would hate her because she's Muslim. She was afraid of us, and she thought we were the wild west because that's what she saw on TV. She thought we shot each other in the street over petty disputes. I had a taxi driver argue with me I wasn't American because I had facial hair and Americans are always clean shaven. He "knew" this because of Friends, the television show. You could argue that we're doing a bad job of selling our "brand" to them, as well. They don't know us, so they form assumptions based on the limited sources of information they have, too. Anyway, it is painful to me when people we consider our friends do something that hurts her feelings or she says "see, they hate me because I'm Muslim." This is why we generally keep it to ourselves. It's not a secret. It's just not something we bring up if it isn't asked because we don't want to do what I just did, defend our choices, become "the face of Islam", etc.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Within my understanding of Islam, I have not been given to categorically disbelieve that there is any such thing as a peaceful Moslem, but my understanding has been that they are not living up to the foundation of the faith as set by Mohammad. By contrast, ISIS seems to be as close a facsimile of the Islam of Mohammad as we have available.

That is completely untrue. Completely. Mohammed didn't force conversion. His original "tribe" included Jews, what we now call "Muslims", and pagans. He did ruthlessly kill some other tribes, and he also allowed others to go in peace. He was pragmatic, merciful would he could be, but understanding the "vendetta" and "tribal" nature of the civilization he lived in, sometimes he could not be. In other threads, we understand that people are a product of their contemporary society. Thomas Jefferson isn't judged on today's standards of race relations, as an example. Mohammed never claimed to be perfect, nor did he claim divinity. This is actually one thing that drew me to the religion. I cannot be divine in the sense you believe Jesus was divine. I can do the best I can given what I have to work with, though.

If you really want to learn about the early history of Islam, I can suggest a book written by a former Catholic nun shortly before 9/11 which is a sort of primer on the history of Islam. I like the pre-9/11 history because it eliminates so much of the politics of such a history, as either an apologist or as someone with an axe to grind. It is, frankly, not a page turner. It is informative and balanced, though. Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles Series Book 2) - Kindle edition by Karen Armstrong. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

[foszoe]

As a casual observer, I can ask, at what point did peacefulness enter Christianity? Christian history is not filled with Matthew 25 type Christians. They are few and far between. And you can argue that the kind of Christians who did evil in Christ's name weren't exercising Christianity. But they thought they were. And at one point they represented a majority of Christians. And the people who believed as you were burned at the stake as heretics.

I call hogwash on the above. It has become something of an Internet truth, but that don't make it historical truth. Especially the use of the term majority. Where did hospitals come from, university systems, human rights?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Should Muslims, not in ISIS, be ashamed of their actions?

 

[Leadeye]

Meh, I've got Scots Irish ancestors that beat up other Irish to get land, ones that both stole from and married Cherokee Indians, ones that fought on both sides of the Civil war. How do I sort all that out to decide what I have to feel guilty for?

 

[jamil]

I call hogwash on the above. It has become something of an Internet truth, but that don't make it historical truth. Especially the use of the term majority. Where did hospitals come from, university systems, human rights?

I noticed before there was an Internet. Don't get me wrong, I've encountered many Matthew 25 kind of Christians. And I support some of their charitable organizations. But just because an organization has a denomination backing them doesn't automatically make them a true Christian dot org. Have you ever stayed at Baptist Hospital in Memphis? Their rep wasn't what most Christians would be proud of. I truely hope they've fixed that.

And why would you be surprised to hear simeone say that about Christians? Isn't the way narrow, and aren't there few who find it? A lot of people call themselves Christians without displaying the kind of person that Matthew 25 depicts. I was taught as a Protestant Christian growing up that works don't save you, they just reveal your state of grace.

I didn't intend this thread to become this. I'm sorry about that.

 

[Trigger Time]

Should Muslims, not in ISIS, be ashamed of their actions?

yes