The complexity comes when you can’t reliably group people. A lot of Muslims are tolerant. However, a number are not. At what point do the views of the individuals represent the views of the group?
Further, Islam is almost as fractured as Christianity. Does one group’s view represent the others? Yes, No, partially? If partially how much?
There’s also the complexity of mismatched information. What looks massively excessive from one perspective could look unpleasant but justifiable from another. How do we balance it out?
P.S. I’m personally not religious, however, I’ve learnt that a “simple and obvious” answer to a complex question is generally quite wrong.
The portion of muslims with the most harmful and intolerant ideas are the sunnis (who accept the hadiths as legitimate scripture), who also make up the majority of muslims.
In a british questionaire a couple years back, 0% of muslims participating said homosexuality should be accepted.
If tolerance is a social contract, then for what reason do we accept it to be one-sided with the radically religious? At what portion of muslims acting/voting to bring sharia to western countries would people agree that it is necessary to act? 10%? 20%? 50%? Never?
No one ever claimed that one label accurately describes the sum of a people. But if it’s the only label that captures anywhere close to 100% of the problematic people, then that’s the one you use.
Christians have shown over and over again to be very intolerant on a different level, and also Jews who adopt Zionist ideas. I don’t think there is a religion in the world that has not been intolerant. Maybe the Satanists are open-minded and tolerant they seem to be chill.
Absolutely relevant for religion and especially muslims.
The complexity comes when you can’t reliably group people. A lot of Muslims are tolerant. However, a number are not. At what point do the views of the individuals represent the views of the group?
Further, Islam is almost as fractured as Christianity. Does one group’s view represent the others? Yes, No, partially? If partially how much?
There’s also the complexity of mismatched information. What looks massively excessive from one perspective could look unpleasant but justifiable from another. How do we balance it out?
P.S. I’m personally not religious, however, I’ve learnt that a “simple and obvious” answer to a complex question is generally quite wrong.
The portion of muslims with the most harmful and intolerant ideas are the sunnis (who accept the hadiths as legitimate scripture), who also make up the majority of muslims.
In a british questionaire a couple years back, 0% of muslims participating said homosexuality should be accepted.
If tolerance is a social contract, then for what reason do we accept it to be one-sided with the radically religious? At what portion of muslims acting/voting to bring sharia to western countries would people agree that it is necessary to act? 10%? 20%? 50%? Never?
No one ever claimed that one label accurately describes the sum of a people. But if it’s the only label that captures anywhere close to 100% of the problematic people, then that’s the one you use.
Christians have shown over and over again to be very intolerant on a different level, and also Jews who adopt Zionist ideas. I don’t think there is a religion in the world that has not been intolerant. Maybe the Satanists are open-minded and tolerant they seem to be chill.
Alright boys, you heard him, throw his corpse in the ditch.