Muslim cry-babies whine of 'assault on human rights'

[Gonzo]

Good post, Jim.

[Robert_S]

For secular humanists, commenting on islamic issues, particularly in the context of islam in Europe, is a political and ethical minefield. On the one hand, you have the anti-islamic sentiments of a variety of nationalistic, right-wing groups, whose agenda is clearly anti-immigration in general, and racist in flavour.

On the onther, we have the warm and fuzzy left, whose initial reasonable reaction to the racism inherent in the nationalist anti-islamic sentiment takes the pendulum to the other extreme, and forbids criticism of islam in a frenzy of PC gone mad....

There are solid and serious grounds for serious criticism of islam by rational secularists, but one must do so without conflating such a critique with the ideology of the nationalist right.

Make the criticism and then throw in a baseless accusation that the national rightists are colluding with radical Islamist clerics.

[Exi5tentialist]

For secular humanists, commenting on islamic issues, particularly in the context of islam in Europe, is a political and ethical minefield. On the one hand, you have the anti-islamic sentiments of a variety of nationalistic, right-wing groups, whose agenda is clearly anti-immigration in general, and racist in flavour.

On the onther, we have the warm and fuzzy left, whose initial reasonable reaction to the racism inherent in the nationalist anti-islamic sentiment takes the pendulum to the other extreme, and forbids criticism of islam in a frenzy of PC gone mad....

There are solid and serious grounds for serious criticism of islam by rational secularists, but one must do so without conflating such a critique with the ideology of the nationalist right.

This places secular humanism in the liberal centre, which is a fallacy. Secular humanists can be far left or far right, or anarchists. I'm a secular humanist and my stance is left. There is no forbidding of criticism of islam or muslims as a far as I'm concerned, what I'm against is the kind of criticism that dehumanises muslims or is accompanied by barely-disguised racism.

For example I criticise everyone including muslims who think that the koran is the word of god passed down from previous generations. First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing. When faced with an ancient text we only have the power to invent modern ideas that coincide with the shapes on the page. Second, god doesn't exist, so I think they are taking it too literally with inadequate evidence. I criticise atheists who also think they can read what previous generations of muslims have said in the koran. The koran is just shapes on a page. We have to invent modern meanings to attach to it.

Secondly I think all racism involves a form of dehumanisation. Anything that dehumanises I put on a par with racism. Describing the burka/niqab as a bin liner, for example, dehumanises muslim women as trash. It's just like racism. Calling muslims cry-babies is one step on a two-step road to removing their human autonomy.

[JimC]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

I understand your reluctance to accept the statement. The idea that we can just pick up an old book from a previous generation and 'read it' subject to only a few caveats about interpretation is a cornerstone of our cultural presumptions, to discard it as I do would have huge implications for our perceptions. But I'd say be careful not to protest too much. The statement wasn't meaningless, you just disagreed with it.

[JimC]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

I understand your reluctance to accept the statement. The idea that we can just pick up an old book from a previous generation and 'read it' subject to only a few caveats about interpretation is a cornerstone of our cultural presumptions, to discard it as I do would have huge implications for our perceptions. But I'd say be careful not to protest too much. The statement wasn't meaningless, you just disagreed with it.

"to discard it as I do..."

So, you are the brave new world, where all that is past (at least in terms of written records) is to be disregarded...

Stalinist revisionists would be in awe of your technique...

The rest of the rational world recognises absurdist fantasies for what they are. Mind you, I'm sure that such a disregard validates your own particular political stance perfectly - the feeling of being the lone knower of truth, in a world sadly deluded, must be deeply satisfying...

Good romantic fantasy, quite enjoyable when one is young...

[Robert_S]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

I understand your reluctance to accept the statement. The idea that we can just pick up an old book from a previous generation and 'read it' subject to only a few caveats about interpretation is a cornerstone of our cultural presumptions, to discard it as I do would have huge implications for our perceptions. But I'd say be careful not to protest too much. The statement wasn't meaningless, you just disagreed with it.

If you insert the word "reliably" then I'd agree, given that there are degrees of reliability.

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

I understand your reluctance to accept the statement. The idea that we can just pick up an old book from a previous generation and 'read it' subject to only a few caveats about interpretation is a cornerstone of our cultural presumptions, to discard it as I do would have huge implications for our perceptions. But I'd say be careful not to protest too much. The statement wasn't meaningless, you just disagreed with it.

"to discard it as I do..."

So, you are the brave new world, where all that is past (at least in terms of written records) is to be disregarded...

Stalinist revisionists would be in awe of your technique...

The rest of the rational world recognises absurdist fantasies for what they are. Mind you, I'm sure that such a disregard validates your own particular political stance perfectly - the feeling of being the lone knower of truth, in a world sadly deluded, must be deeply satisfying...

Good romantic fantasy, quite enjoyable when one is young...

I mean, discard the idea, not the books. The books can stay. All literature makes a wonderful canvas for our philosophical inventions. Of course, I treat Marx the same way, so Marxists need to invent a whole new philosophy if they're going to try and persuade me of anything.

[JimC]

The ideas need not be some sort of straight-jacket, but they are a meaningful and real component of the intellectual evolution of the species. To speak of discarding them is the absurdity...

You seem to think the alternative is mindless following of old memes...

[Exi5tentialist]

No I was talking specifically about discarding the one idea that reading ancient texts transmits anything to us from the past, because I think we have to invent all our concepts from scratch in the present, since such concepts can only exist in the brains of living people.

When we invent an idea that appears to be synchronous with one in an ancient text we just need to be careful not to think that the ancient text has transmitted the idea to us, not discard the idea itself.

Also I don't see the growth and development of civilisation as being accurately described by the term 'intellectual evolution'. That is to suggest that human ideas are analogous to physical things like fossils and DNA. Intellectual ideas exist outside the physical world. Invoking evolution is not helpful in recognising that distinction between the physical, for which there is masses of evidence that the model of evolution over time is valid, and the intellectual, on which we can only superimpose metaphors from physical science in order to invent a concept like intellectual history, which actually doesn't have the same validity.

[JimC]

No I was talking specifically about discarding the one idea that reading ancient texts transmits anything to us from the past, because I think we have to invent all our concepts from scratch in the present, since such concepts can only exist in the brains of living people.

When we invent an idea that appears to be synchronous with one in an ancient text we just need to be careful not to think that the ancient text has transmitted the idea to us, not discard the idea itself.

Also I don't see the growth and development of civilisation as being accurately described by the term 'intellectual evolution'. That is to suggest that human ideas are analogous to physical things like fossils and DNA. Intellectual ideas exist outside the physical world. Invoking evolution is not helpful in recognising that distinction between the physical, for which there is masses of evidence that the model of evolution over time is valid, and the intellectual, on which we can only superimpose metaphors from physical science in order to invent a concept like intellectual history, which actually doesn't have the same validity.

The first component of your reply is the absurdity. Ancient texts certainly transmit something to us, although we need to be careful about the interpretation of that particular something...

As for the analogy involved in intellectual evolution, I agree that it is by no means an exact analogy; however, it is at least descriptive of the fact that ideas change, and some components of that change may resemble some aspects of evolution.

And I don't need a lecture about the validity of evolutionary models, given that I have spent much of my professional life either researching or teaching them...

[HomerJay]

For secular humanists, commenting on islamic issues, particularly in the context of islam in Europe, is a political and ethical minefield. On the one hand, you have the anti-islamic sentiments of a variety of nationalistic, right-wing groups, whose agenda is clearly anti-immigration in general, and racist in flavour.

On the onther, we have the warm and fuzzy left, whose initial reasonable reaction to the racism inherent in the nationalist anti-islamic sentiment takes the pendulum to the other extreme, and forbids criticism of islam in a frenzy of PC gone mad....

There are solid and serious grounds for serious criticism of islam by rational secularists, but one must do so without conflating such a critique with the ideology of the nationalist right.

Part of the problem is that we have lost sense of how good or bad people's objections are.

Whilst most people condemn the far right attitudes as unacceptable, we tend to be much more forgiving of far right racist ideologies that come from minorities.

In the UK this is most clearly shown in splits in the left over things like the Stop The War Coalition and the UAF.

Many (citation needed - how many?) people on the left have qualms about campaigning alongside muslims who hold views, which if Christian, would be considered unacceptable.

The UAF, although a broad left coalition has in some cases been usurped by young muslims, who for example, demonstrated under a UAF banner with a Pro-Sharia faction, on the grounds that they weren't pro-sharia themselves but were defending the right of the pro-sharia lobby to have their little demo.

For the UAF muslim youth, being Pro-Sharia wasn't enough to prevent them marching with their fellow muslims, even though they could have joined fellow muslims in the One Law For All counter demonstration!

Similarly although the Far Right muslims are well to the Right of the EDL, it doesn't stop some on the left from demonstrating with the Far-Right muslims at Stop The War demos.
Yesterday one of the senior London coppers was suggesting muslims engage with the EDL ahead of a big demonstration today in London, in an area with a large muslim population, where the Home Secretary has decided to ban the EDL from marching and limited them to a static demo instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/0 ... ims-police

That's before we've started on Israel!

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi5stentialist werote:

First, I do not think previous generations can communicate ideas to us through writing.

A bizzare and meaningless statement. Sure, we might need to be careful about the interpretation of ideas from the past, by understanding the context in which they were written, but such an absolutist denial of meaning is the reason why the purist left are not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, or their fantasist equivalents in the right...

I understand your reluctance to accept the statement. The idea that we can just pick up an old book from a previous generation and 'read it' subject to only a few caveats about interpretation is a cornerstone of our cultural presumptions, to discard it as I do would have huge implications for our perceptions. But I'd say be careful not to protest too much. The statement wasn't meaningless, you just disagreed with it.

If you insert the word "reliably" then I'd agree, given that there are degrees of reliability.

If you mean change it to, "I do not think previous generations can reliably communicate ideas to us through writing"? I think that's just the point I'm disagreeing about. The view I am stating is that previous generations cannot communicate any ideas to us at all. Writing is just black and white shapes on a page. A dog can't read them, a baby can't read them. A reader needs a whole mass of constructs to assign any sense to writing at all. Sometimes the process of inventing a hierarchy of constructs can be useful in that it could for example lead you to find some buried treasure that an author has left for you somewhere. But in my view that's just a evidence for a synchronicity of constructs in the author and the reader.

In describing this process we tend to use the shorthand that the author communicated the idea to the reader, but one of the major problems with that is that having invented the idea of communication by writing we then go around applying it to all writing (like the koran and the bible) when in reality I think we probably have no idea what the prevailing constructs were that went into those writings, and any attempt to decode them is pure projection. Another problem is that (in my view) ideas can only exist in the minds of living people. If an ancient has had an idea, and then a reader 1300 years later reads the same idea, where has it been in the meantime? It can't reside on the page, because ideas cannot exist on pages, they can only exist in brains.

I might anticipate the response that that talking about synchronicity is just a lot of waffle to describe a communication process that is actually the same thing and that it's straightforward, but I really think it isn't, because I think that in general atheists, christians and muslims all read far too much into what ancient texts 'say', when really all the ideas are being invented in the here and now to fit our own times.

[HomerJay]

In describing this process we tend to use the shorthand that the author communicated the idea to the reader

Can we have another NIIYII derail thread please?

[MrJonno]

More left/right wing politics is still economic based in the UK not race or religion

A poor muslim, christian , atheist (or more generally indifferent to religion) will generally vote on the left
A rich muslim, christian etc will vote more rightwing.

The idea that which foreigners we bomb makes any real political difference in elections is absurd in the UK for the main reason our military is relatively small compared to the US and most of us have will not even know someone in the military. Those who do join the military if in the ranks will be poorish and generally vote Labour, the officers conservative . Quite simply there is no military vote, people care more about their jobs and health service than dead soldiers (either British or foreign) never mind dead civilians