The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[stip]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

you seem dead set on arguing with imagined straw men.

So no one is arguing that islam is a religion predisposed to loathsome attitudes about many things ---> it is a religion whose people are probably predisposed to violence because they believe these loathsome things ---> we need to take more aggressive steps to stop these people for whom violence is a byproduct of their religion (with the implication that these views are widespread enough amongst the general population that we have to speak in generalities about the region rather than isolated groups)?


How could I have drawn such an implication from something like

a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

If I've somehow misread you and LV I apologize. Please provide me with a more accurate and less straw filled summation of your views.

[Mine]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

[stip]

The worst part about this conversation is that you assholes are putting me in a position where I'm forced to defend religion.

[dimejinky99]

The worst part about this conversation is that you assholes are putting me in a position where I'm forced to defend religion.

Defending the indefensible.

[Norah]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes, exactly

Please explain what I've missed.

[BurtReynolds]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes I think you are misreading it. I'll explain later, but we seem to be talking over each other. I'm not specifically talking about terrorists, but I also don't think you can ignore that a breeding ground exists within the ideology as it currently stands.

It also depends on what you consider extremism. Their views on women and gays aren't merely "nonprogressive". I suppose whether you would consider it "extreme" would depend on your perspective.

I will say it smacks to me of white liberal racism not to talk about it.

[Norah]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes I think you are misreading it. I'll explain later, but we seem to be talking over each other. I'm not specifically talking about terrorists, but I also don't think you can ignore that a breeding ground exists within the ideology as it currently stands.

It also depends on what you consider extremism. Their views on women and gays aren't merely "nonprogressive". I suppose whether you would consider it "extreme" would depend on your perspective.

I will say it smacks to me of white liberal racism not to talk acknowledge it.

Maybe those views are extreme and we're just using the same word to describe different things.

[BurtReynolds]

And they aren't conservative, they are reactionary.

[Norah]

ok let's get bogged down by semantics

[BurtReynolds]

ok let's get bogged down by semantics

Well it might matter if you are a conservative

[@SkitchP]

ok let's get bogged down by semantics

PedantN

[LoathedVermin72]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

[Norah]

ok let's get bogged down by semantics

Well it might matter if you are a conservative

words have multiple means, i meant conservative as in old fashioned and dogmatic

as in a catholic with conservative views on their faith might not eat meat on friday

[LoathedVermin72]

I will say it smacks to me of white liberal racism not to talk about it.

yes yes yes yes yes

[nyquillyn]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

[Norah]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

[LoathedVermin72]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

[Norah]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

except the cherrypicking actually extends to the ideology and fundamental teachings in a lot of cases

[LoathedVermin72]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

except the cherrypicking actually extends to the ideology and fundamental teachings in a lot of cases

...For the individual doing it. You guys seriously can't help conflating individual with ideology? I don't understand this.