The Managerial Sack Race

[Frenchie]

I hope at least some will understand what Fascism is now...

[little dave hedgehog]

i don't have time to separate people up into a million different little groups. i find it's expedient to just hate them all and move on with your day.

[baitman]

i don't have time to separate people up into a million different little groups. i find it's expedient to just hate them all and move on with your day.

you cant go far wrong with that philosophy

[badpiggy]

I hope at least some will understand what Fascism is now...

I've been arguing against it for a while now, except it was a religiously based fascism I was arguing against.

Neil, are you honestly saying Islam - or any monotheistic religion - isn't an ideology? Religion is fundamentally ideological.

Maybe we should take this up in the EDL thread. If either of us could be arsed.

[Neil Young]

I simply draw a distinction between Islam, a set of religious principles that some choose to live by, and forms of Political Islam, which use those (disputed) religious principles as a basis or justification for political ends, usually as a banner and a rallying cry.

More broadly, there is a difference between a religious creed (or religious ideology) and a political creed (or political ideology).

It seems as pointless to me to use political analysis to investigate religious principles/dogma as it is to use a theology to analyse scientific phenomena. I think that's exactly what a lot of criticism of Islam is. It's using the wrong framework, like saying fossils exist because God put them there.

[little dave hedgehog]

don't forget the sun creed.

[badpiggy]

I simply draw a distinction between Islam, a set of religious principles that some choose to live by, and forms of Political Islam, which use those (disputed) religious principles as a basis or justification for political ends, usually as a banner and a rallying cry.

More broadly, there is a difference between a religious creed (or religious ideology) and a political creed (or political ideology).

It seems as pointless to me to use political analysis to investigate religious principles/dogma as it is to use a theology to analyse scientific phenomena. I think that's exactly what a lot of criticism of Islam is. It's using the wrong framework, like saying fossils exist because God put them there.

Jesus Neil I don't get this. In some bizarre convoluted attempt to avoid being critical of a set of ideas, you're separating out Creed from principle from theology from ideology - the four go together to make the entity surely? The Creed, texts, principles and theology of Islam all make Islam. You don't have to go to Islamism to find offensive repressive controlling backwardness. Unless you think local Sharia courts are a good idea. Or veiling. Or homophobia.

Point of order - theology is useless for explaining anything other than itself. So it's useless. And I see no problem using the lexicon of politics to analyse religions eg analysing the hierarchical structure of catholicism. That's very useful to use the language of the empowered and the disempowered.

In your post you raise the idea of how to tolerate the intolerant. That's my question too. You seem to have no problem eviscerating fascism. Quite rightly. Why spare religion?

[badpiggy]

One more point: I disagree that the wrong framework is being used to critique Islam or Christianity for that matter. A lot of the criticism is from a moral philosophy standpoint eg Sam Harris. Criticizing religion at all is slippery though as inbuilt into religion is an imperviousness to criticism. That's why most internal religious debates are ridiculous - and I don't see why you reference them ocasionalyvas a reason not criticise religion from the outside - because it's based on scriptural analysis to find the supposed truth eg what do the scholars, Qur'an and Hadith say about homosexuality or what does the Bible say about creation? Theologians tend to be the ones who claim that critics are using the wrong terms in their analysis. From where I stand, what possible way can I express in acceptable theological language that there's no hell, Jesus didn't rise from the dead and no angel appeared to Muhammad?

[dom9]

Weirdest thread tangent. Ever.

[badpiggy]

Needs to moved alright.

[Neil Young]

I agree about theology. That's the whole point.

I don't know why you keep trying to use politics to analyse theology. Not only is it a waste of your time, it's also doomed to fail.

As for denying the existence of Hell and angels and all that, I agree of course but so what? It doesn't change the minds of people who believe it. They're wrong but they can be wrong if they want to be.

It's when they seek to impose their views on others that I take exception, whether through violence or statute or pressure...because then it's no longer a matter of individual religious belief but becomes POLITICAL.

I already answered your question about the differences between Islam and Fascism. Apples and zirconium. That's why I mentioned Islamism...

[Phoenix07]

Based on what Neil and bad piggy have said, I think Ian Holloway will be the next to go.

[Frenchie]

I think and hope it will his Moyesness after a string of losses, injuries and the like.

Woy Bodgson waiting in the wings to offer his "expewiance" as it's all the same as when he won the "Crispy Fillet o' Fish" playoffs in Helsinki when James Hunt was F1 champ.

Ah golden years...David Bowie......

[Roboklopp]

Nah, we want Moyes to limp on a good few years yet & sow a deep-seated culture of failure there for a very, very long time indeed.

[Exiled_red]

Nah, we want Moyes to limp on a good few years yet & sow a deep-seated culture of failure there for a very, very long time indeed.