Racism about islam can't exist: islam isn't a race: Poll

[JimC]

Islam can ONLY be a theocratic dictatorship that is islam's stated aim

There's no such aim attributable to "Islam"

It can be attributed to both many parts of its sacred writings, and to a certain proportion of its current adherents. Generally, the ones with guns and explosives...

But yes, Islam is a very elastic concept, and a great many of its current adherents just want to live and let live. To do so, it behoves them to repudiate those who do not...

[pErvinalia]

Which they do.

[piscator]

With middling success, it would seem.

[pErvinalia]

What do you expect moderate Muslims outside of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria to do about nut jobs there?

[JimC]

What do you expect moderate Muslims outside of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria to do about nut jobs there?

Be martyred for the cause of religious freedom?

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

So, there is Christianaphobia, too, you just don't think it hurts. So, is it Christianaphobia for me to say that Christianity is the motherload of bad ideas? What if I say that Christianity is a load of misogynistic, homophobic nonsense, and a bunch of fairy tales, and that Jesus was either a fake or never existed? Christianaphobe?

It hurts but it's not as damaging or dangerous, because Christianity is already in a strong position in the West.

So what? Islam is in a strong position throughout the world.

And, on what basis do you even claim it is "damaging" or "dangerous." This is an opinion. Islam sucks. I don't like it. Neither do I like Rocky Road Ice Cream, Cosmopolitan Martinis, and Meister Brau beer. They all suck too. Does the fact that other people think Islam is a religion and deserving of some sort of heightened "respect" make a negative opinion of it "damaging" or "dangerous?"

I love how you claimed that saying the Christianity is the motherload of bad ideas and a load of misogynistic, homophobic nonsense is "damaging or dangerous" (albeit not "as damaging or dangerous" as Islam). You really believe that? You think that me or others saying that about Christianity is "damaging or dangerous?" To whom? How so? And, so what?

Saying Christianity is homophobic is too much of a generalisation when whole LGBT churches exist. It missesthe target. "Homophobic nonsense" includes making stupid jokes about gay people as a tactic against dissent but that happens at Rationalia anyway, and Rationalia isn't Christian, or is it? Of course you can say "it's a bunch of fairy tales" but probably not to a bereaved person who's benefiting from emotional support from a Christian.

It might be in bad taste to do so, but I sure as hell can say "it's a bunch of fairy tales" to whomever I choose (legally speaking). What is this? You're looking to make bad taste and rude or insulting comments illegal? Or, are you just discussing what you believe the cultural norm should be?

I agree Jesus was either a fake or never existed but I wouldn't use that as a way of generalising about the badness of all Christians or as a shoe-in to generalising about Islam.

What does it matter what you would use it for? I wouldn't use the fact that the Mohammed of the Koran was likely fake or never existed as a way of generalizing about the badness of all Muslims either.

There is nothing wrong with "generalizing about ISLAM" just like there is nothing wrong with "generalizing about Christianity." These are words that mean things. It's like saying we can't say dogs have four legs and two ears, because that's generalizing about dogs.

There are more versions of Christianity and more versions of Islam than just one.

So? Maybe they all suck. Like, there are more versions of existentialism than just one. So what?

What is it with this "there are more versions" of this religion or that? Most everybody knows that, and what difference does it make?

Shit, there is more than one version of Presbyterianism. Does that mean we can't talk about Presbyterianism because by using that word we can't possibly be talking about each and every Presbyterian on the planet? This line is tired, and it's bullshit. it's a trope trotted out to defend distasteful ideas from criticism because they are part of the Progressive Stack.

Genralisations, generally, are just a bad thing so none of the examples you give can be answered very directly, it all depends on the exact circumstances.

Again, so what? It doesn't mean that criticism or ridicule of Islam is racist, first of all.

Also, people can't have conversations without some kinds of generalizations. How do you study theology without generalizations? You want to learn Catholicism, so you learn the precepts of Catholicism. Does that mean there aren't offshoots of Catholicism that go other ways? No, of course not. But to talk you have to use words, and words are almost always a form of generalization. Words often define categories of things. Cats. If I say I don't like feline behaviors and attitudes, have I referred to every fucking cat on the planet? I don't like their fur or the way they purr! Oh, shit, that's an unfair generalization! Some cats are hairless and some don't purr.

But it is undeniable that in the West the exact circumstances are that Christianity is in a privileged position compared to Islam. To deny that is to be open to bigotry.

In the West, sure, because many European countries have state religions and government sponsored or endorsed religions. In the US, of course, everyone has freedom of religion, and Muslims are free to practice their religion as they see fit and are treated exactly the same under the law. Now, that doesn't mean people have to LIKE Islam. Most people in the US are Christian. That's called "being the majority." It's like how most people in England are White Anglo Saxon Protestant. That's not "privilege" that's just being in the majority. If almost everyone likes pizza, and you don't like pizza, then people will think you odd. So what?

And, bigotry is not a function of majority status -- Muslims can be very bigoted, just as Christians can. Bigotry is an intolerance of other ideas. Lots of people are bigoted.

My use of the term "Christian-phobia" was illustrative. I'm not bound to it or any variation of the spelling of it.

I'm not worried about spelling, or what you're bound to.

I find it interesting that you illustrate what may well be the fundamental difference between liberals and leftist progressives. Note how you declared the expression of a negative opinion about religions as "dangerous" and "damaging." You even said that about Christianity, you just clarified that because Christianity is privileged in the west, it's not "as" dangerous and damaging as such expressions about Islam.

This is what is wrong with the progressive left, and it underpins much of the horseshit that we are going through now on college campuses and elsewhere. Folks are on about the views and expressions that they think are "damaging" and "dangerous" and they make the same distinction you made, based on some iteration of a Progressive Stack. If there is an ideology that is dangerous and damaging, it's that one, because that way lies the loss of individual liberty and there sit the thought police.

[Forty Two]

One of these day Jim you might want to argue point by point surah by surah or hadith by hadith about what the holy literature of Islam ACTUALLY SAYS ....
Until then I guess it's ok to claim that any atheist who states that ISLAM IS EVIL IS A RACIST ? i'm waiting for the version of Islam that Exi5tentialist seems to think is worthwhile ..the one where slavery is forbidden the one that does not castigate unbelievers the one that states women are not property and that people can NEVER BE SLAVES????
Sorry Exi5tentialist but you know FUCK ALL about ISLAM and guess what ........If you make the claim that MY problem with islam is because of brown skins then you have just earned yourself a world of shit Because your racism is blatant and sickening
"more versions of Islam than just one." LOLOLOMAO RETARD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't a person who says "Islam is Good" also be a racist then? It's the same kind of generalization, isn't it, just a favorable one.

[Forty Two]

Reading this thread, which seems to be deteriorating, I guess that if I defend the right of muslims to religious freedom, that means I can't be "true atheist", I'm now a "so-called atheist". Hey, that means I don't disbelieve in God now! I've been declared an undecided or perhaps even a theist without anybody asking me! Praise be to True Atheists! Alternatively, it seems, notions that live by irrationality die by irrationality.

Oh, no - not a single person here is against the right of Muslims to religious freedom. However, religious freedom is not the freedom from speech critical of religion.

[Forty Two]

Muslims have the right to practice their religion in all western countries, as far as I'm aware. This does not mean that aspects or tenets of their religion, and the behaviour of some of their fellow muslims cannot be criticised, as long as even if it is neitherovergeneralised nor and blended with actual racism.

As an aside, christians have no rights to openly practice their religion in many muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, and open atheists are in a great deal of danger...

[Forty Two]

Feck, it is clear from the context of the thread that this post:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1644830

was aimed at Exi. This is a reminder that such personal attacks are against our rules. Please keep the vigour of your posts to attacking arguments rather than posters.

Didn't Exi call JimC an racist in a "group attack?"

[Forty Two]

Hillary and Bernie are not members of the GOP presidential debate. So, who of you is Cruz and who is Rubio?

Seth would be Cruz, and 42 can be Rubio (as I think he's the closest Merkan on the forum to a not-fully insane right winger*).

* to be clear, I'm saying he's to the left of Rubio, so therefore even further from right-wing nutwhackery.

I'm more of a Kasich than a Rubio.

[Forty Two]

I agree with this 100%. But one thing to keep in mind is that children are indoctrinated into this stuff, so by the time they get to adulthood it's perhaps a little too simplistic to say that a Muslim's sense of Islam is simply a set of ideas. It's also become part of their identity, via the indoctrination. So we need to tread a little carefully and recognise it's not always a case of someone just ditching a set of bad ideas when presented with the evidence for their badness. This is the perniciousness of religion, as it's based on "faith" and evidence never plays a part. So it's hard to use evidence as an argument against a faith position.

As an argument regarding manners and persuasion, sure.

As a legal argument, it's not a good one. No, we don't "need to tread a little carefully" unless we want to. See line regarding manners above.

In the marketplace of ideas, Islam is entitled to no "careful treading." If people find that treading carefully works for them, or if the context of etiquette in given situations militate against saying certain things -- for sure -- it's the same reason we dress for certain occasions, and govern the topics of conversation for certain occasions. And, as an atheist, I often hold my tongue around the religious -- it's a daily affair, governing my own speech.

But, I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone claim I'm a racist for saying that Islam is a shit religion. It's a shit religion. It sucks. It's the motherload of bad ideas. Mohammed should be drawn in embarrassing situations and caricatured freely. And, anyone suggesting that I am "damaging" or "dangerous" to Islam by saying that can screw off (obviously, not you -- just making the point).

I don't CARE if it's "damaging" to Islam. In fact, I hope it is damaging to Islam because I want it damaged. I want it debunked, and embarrassed, and I want people to quit that religion in droves. Please. That's called the marketplace of ideas, and it's no different than people who want others to abandon bad philosophies.

[Exi5tentialist]

Wouldn't a person who says "Islam is Good" also be a racist then? It's the same kind of generalization, isn't it, just a favorable one.

That's an extremely good question, I'm glad somebody asked it. I'd treat the statement "Islam is good" differently from the statement "Islam is bad". Because although I don't think there is any single thing called Islam, there are really no hurtful consequences to anyone by saying "Islam is good".

I'm interested in the minimisation of human pain. Generalising negatively about islam has painful consequences in aggregate by helping some people justify islamophobic or racist attacks on muslims including causing bodily harm and murder. Praising Islam has no negative consequences whatsoever.

Of course if some people are using islam to justify murderous activities, as ISIS do, and then use the "Islam is good" praisings to somehow bolster the justification for those activities, then I protest alongside anyone else. But I'm not going to visit on an innocent muslim in Birmingham the sins of ISIS. The contextless statement "Islam is good" is so innocuous it's not worth quibbling over.

And actually my position on Islam is very different from the British Government's. Cameron says that ISIS aren't "true muslims" because they don't follow the tenets of islam as described by respected muslim scholars. In my view I don't think anyone can say who is a true muslim and who isn't. There are too many versions of Islam to say. The way to resolve the problem of Isis is not to seek ways to intellectually declare them to be heathens or apostates or non-muslim. And it's certainly not to declare Isis to be "true muslims" who most faithfully follow the Koran, because I think the Koran is just a load of meaningless words. The only way to resolve the problem of Isis to judge it against our secular standards and defend those standards. I think bombing loads of middle eastern countries is a bad way to do that.

[Exi5tentialist]

Saying Christianity is homophobic is too much of a generalisation when whole LGBT churches exist. It missesthe target. "Homophobic nonsense" includes making stupid jokes about gay people as a tactic against dissent but that happens at Rationalia anyway, and Rationalia isn't Christian, or is it? Of course you can say "it's a bunch of fairy tales" but probably not to a bereaved person who's benefiting from emotional support from a Christian.

It might be in bad taste to do so, but I sure as hell can say "it's a bunch of fairy tales" to whomever I choose (legally speaking). What is this? You're looking to make bad taste and rude or insulting comments illegal? Or, are you just discussing what you believe the cultural norm should be?

When I say "you can't say x" to someone I don't literally mean you're rendered incapable of saying it. It's more a shorthand for saying "you can't say that ethically" or something similar. I'm not literally forbidding it.

If you're really saying that you'd give yourself a blank cheque to interrupt any conversation where a bereaved person is benefiting from emotional support from a Christian and say "it's a bunch of fairy tales" then I'd question how genuine you're being. I can see that in some circumstances, such an intervention would be justified. In others, not.