ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags anti-Islam rhetoric , anti-islam sentiments , atheism , islam

Reply
Old 18th October 2017, 08:13 AM   #81
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
You have to try to explain it continously because you continously fail to see your own errors, some of them being:

a) No remotely prescise definition of "islamophobia"
b) Not using the definitions you have; meaning that often people are called islamophobe although not meeting the criteria and instead of someone arguing "Wait, he/she is not islamophobic cause criteria ... is not met" nobody gives a damn
c) No caring whether the evidence leaves only the option islamophobia or still other non-unreasonable options

To make you understand, here is a definition of islamophobia offered by some site called oxford living dictionary:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/islamophobia
"Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This criteria is fulfilled in case of "Dislike of ... Islam" due the two "or".

Since you as an atheist dislike all religions you also dislike Islam; while you might not especially dislike Islam, the definition does not require this and hence - according to that definition - you are
ISLAMOPHOBIC.

In a rational discussions you would simply nod to this analysis, search for/formulate a definition of Islamophobia, test again whether that definition would make you an islamophobe and reject it in such case repeating this process until you had a reasonable definition. And then you would check what i wrote, to estimate, whether i meet the criteria. And only then you would suggest, that anyone is islamophob, cause you value precision.

But my bet is, that you do not give a damn.

Cause it is absolutely widely known that there is no definition of that term you use in a supposedly "precise" approach, visible by wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo...nd_definitions

containing no definition whatsoever which isn't either as imprecise as the above or isn't accepted widely.

Sorry, there is nothing precise about your argument, hence you are damned to repeat it forever.
Sorry, but your comment seems to me scarcely understandable.

First of all, the Oxford dictionary is particularly ambiguous here: “Dislike” and “prejudice” are two different causes. I dislike violence and it is not a prejudice.
I have not a prejudice about anything. I try, at least. I have some distaste for many things and you cannot say that I have a “phobia”.
Secondly, I am disturbed by the political, social and cultural outcomes of Islam's force. But I have some strong objections -rational, I hope- to the Spanish government, Christianity and financial capitalism also and this doesn't make me a "governmentphobic", etc. I try to apply the same proportionality in my criticism to financial capitalism than to Islamic groups. I hope that this prevents me to fall in any kind of "phobia", Islamic or not.

Having a "phobia" usually means to have an unjustified aversion to a person, entity or thing. I think -independently of what the Oxford dictionary can said- that the "islamophobia" in Europe is the ideology that extends some strong criticism against some particular groups of Islamic activists -maybe partially justified- to any Muslim believer and, even worse, to so called "Muslims" that are not Islamic believers, but only citizens of countries with Islamic majority. In this sense "islamophobia" is simple racism and I can assure you that what I am not is a racist.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:32 AM   #82
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I essentially agree, but I also think it's a bit pointless to "criticize Islam" or "Christianity" in general. A critical examination of source texts, sure, but any criticism directed at Islamic practice and society must be carefully done in a socio-political and historical context. For example, no sensible person should reach the conclusion that the main cause of suicide bombing is some wording in the Qur'an - its popularity is generally to be attributed to its use in the Iran-Iraq war. Likewise the application of various ultrareactionary policies like in Saudi Arabia must also be viewed with an understanding of the history of these movements and their relationship to "ordinary" Muslims, fundamentalism as a reaction to imperialism, etc.

Anything less is useless demagoguery.
A critical examination can be made not only on texts, but about common religious practices or the relation with not believers that are usually common to an individual religion. But you are right in that the socio-political criticism has to be made in the context. Why the relative tolerance of Islam respect unbelievers in the Middle Age has become fanatical intolerance now? ‒‒for example. The Quran doesn't justify killing himself even in the worse of circumstances. Therefore the bombing-men and those that incite them have to make particular interpretations of the book that are rejected to less violent Muslims. May be the Quran's militarism can impulse extreme politics, but there are more other reasons than particular religious texts. Anyway the religious impulse is not negligible. This is also valid to other violent-religious groups.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 09:03 AM   #83
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

Having a "phobia" usually means to have an unjustified aversion to a person, entity or thing. I think -independently of what the Oxford dictionary can said- that the "islamophobia" in Europe is the ideology that extends some strong criticism against some particular groups of Islamic activists -maybe partially justified- to any Muslim believer and, even worse, to so called "Muslims" that are not Islamic believers, but only citizens of countries with Islamic majority. In this sense "islamophobia" is simple racism and I can assure you that what I am not is a racist.
Ok.

With that definition i am also not islamophobic.

My apologies for presuming you do not care much about the definition.

But be aware that the number of islamophobes under your definition will be rather low. For example, Geert Wilders might not even count as islamophob under that definition; though one would have to take a closer look.

Last edited by Carn; 18th October 2017 at 09:05 AM.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:04 AM   #84
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And that however islamic texts of 7th to 9th centuries were applied/interpreted betwenn 13th and 20th century cannot prove that today events are not effected by islamic texts today?
Jesus, you don't get it, do you? Much of the Muslim world today was greatly shaped in the early modern era by the Ottomans. Understanding its rise, decline and fall is absolutely vital to understanding the middle east today.

Again, your toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general, makes it clear that bigotry fuels you.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:37 PM   #85
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Jesus, you don't get it, do you? Much of the Muslim world today was greatly shaped in the early modern era by the Ottomans. Understanding its rise, decline and fall is absolutely vital to understanding the middle east today.
And you suggest, that with what you consider a correct understanding one suddenly realizes that content of the quran has no negative effect on world of today?

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Again, your toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general, makes it clear that bigotry fuels you.
Your lack of reasoning is abmyssal. There could be countless other reasons for my behavior, which you perceive as "toxic disregard for socio-political and historical context and um, learning in general", besides bigotry.

Hence, it cannot make clear, that bigotry fuels me.

You know what realy, realy enforced some of my views, that you and others might perceive as islamophobic?

Reading the works of people arguing against "islamophobia" and in favor of islamic scripture being not or at least not more problematic than other scripture. Because of simply so many basic errors in reasoning.

Just as you do here, for example by claiming that my behavior can only be based in bigotry, although there is inssuficient evidence. Or by thinking that by arguing that a certain historical development leading to today's situation, you could somehow show, that content of islamic scripture is not one of the causes for today's situation.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:00 PM   #86
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Ok.

With that definition i am also not islamophobic.

My apologies for presuming you do not care much about the definition.

But be aware that the number of islamophobes under your definition will be rather low. For example, Geert Wilders might not even count as islamophob under that definition; though one would have to take a closer look.
I am glad that I have been able to clear up my position. Sometimes I feel that my horrifying English make me opaque.

I don’t like the word “islamophobia”. It is a few confusing. I would use straightforwardly “racism”, but I am aware that the aversion to Arabs —another confuse word— and migrants from the Third World is disguised with cultural and political arguments. It is not easy to catch when cultural criticism ends and begins sheer racism. Anyway, I don’t know many things of Netherlands' politic. From what I know Geert Wilders is a racist. He claims for discriminative laws against Muslims and this is racism. His admiration for the state of Israel is also racist, because Israel has four or five basic discriminative laws against Palestinian that are sheer racism. His emphatic defense of Judeo-Christian values smells of racism and authoritarian politics, although it claims not to be fascist but a liberal. Perhaps he is a democratic fascist, that is to say, he would like acting as a fascist by popular mandate. This happen to many politicians in democratic countries.

I think that islamophobia or racism are more evident in day a day statements and political measures that I don’t know in the case of Netherland.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 01:45 AM   #87
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Or by thinking that by arguing that a certain historical development leading to today's situation, you could somehow show, that content of islamic scripture is not one of the causes for today's situation.
You really have no idea how this works, do you? I'd like to see you pursue a degree in history and write a thesis with your 'Islamic Scripture' narrative of Eastern history. You'd be laughed out of the room for even suggesting such a poorly conceived perspective.

But sure. Keep flaunting your ignorance of history!
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 19th October 2017 at 01:46 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 01:58 AM   #88
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,850
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
And you suggest, that with what you consider a correct understanding one suddenly realizes that content of the quran has no negative effect on world of today?

...snip...
Coaching it as a question doesn't disguise that you are creating a strawman to argue against rather than addressing the actual argument.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 09:21 AM   #89
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You really have no idea how this works, do you? I'd like to see you pursue a degree in history and write a thesis with your 'Islamic Scripture' narrative of Eastern history. You'd be laughed out of the room for even suggesting such a poorly conceived perspective.

But sure. Keep flaunting your ignorance of history!
The joke is on you.

You implied that by somehow understanding Ottoman history, i could clear up my misconceptions about the effects islamic scripture in our world today and/or that understanding it is impossible without knowledge of Ottoman history.

So you claimed that somehow the history of Ottoman Empire is crucial for understanding why for example the province Sabah of Malaysia has penalty for apostasy on the books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposta...Islam#Malaysia

That is about 7000 km away from the largest expansion the Ottoman Empire had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

But somehow, if i do not understand Ottoman history, i must be wrong when forming an opinion about what is going on in Sabah.

That is just a total joke.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 09:25 AM   #90
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Coaching it as a question doesn't disguise that you are creating a strawman to argue against rather than addressing the actual argument.
The "actual argument" visible so far is, that one has to study ottoman history in close detail to be capable of understanding why in the eastern most province of Malaysia apostasy is punishable by prison. That does not make any sense.

Hence, i ask questions to understand what the argument is. Cause it cannot be that ridiculous.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 09:34 AM   #91
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don’t like the word “islamophobia”.
Cannot object that statement.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It is not easy to catch when cultural criticism ends and begins sheer racism.
Yes, hard to distinguish.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
He claims for discriminative laws against Muslims and this is racism.
Ignoring the issue that such laws would not be acceptable under European law and propably law of the Netherlands, why is that racism?

There are "white" muslims, "black" muslims, etc. And there are non-muslim Arabs, etc.

So the group of people Wilders might want to have dsicriminative laws against does not share any common outward appearance, characteristics or ethinicity.

Furthermore, anyone could get rid of the charateristic Wilders might discriminate against by simply declaring to be non-muslim; so its not even an inherent and unchangable characteristic Wilders wants to use for discrimination.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 09:55 AM   #92
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The joke is on you.

You implied that by somehow understanding Ottoman history, i could clear up my misconceptions about the effects islamic scripture in our world today and/or that understanding it is impossible without knowledge of Ottoman history.

So you claimed that somehow the history of Ottoman Empire is crucial for understanding why for example the province Sabah of Malaysia has penalty for apostasy on the books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposta...Islam#Malaysia

That is about 7000 km away from the largest expansion the Ottoman Empire had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

But somehow, if i do not understand Ottoman history, i must be wrong when forming an opinion about what is going on in Sabah.

That is just a total joke.
You're shooting yourself in the foot now. You weren't exclusively speaking of Malaysia. You're literally just making it harder for yourself by broadening the area you wish to make sweeping statements about. Any reasonable person should realize that although the influence of the Ottoman Empire on the Malay sultanates was not insignificant, the former is a much less decisive factor in the history of Malaysia, than with the MENA region. As it happens, I'm simply not well-read enough on Islam in SE Asia, and even less the nature of their pre-Islamic states, to discuss it at length. Obviously, Early Modern European Imperialism is an extremely important factor in these regions.

Seriously, the way you interpret this is purely malicious (or possibly very, very ignorant). If I said that the Holy Roman Empire was very important to understand the history of Christianity, and that medieval and Early Modern development of Christianity into the present day cannot be properly understood without studying the HRE closely, and that in fact studying the HRE and its interaction with the church was a much better way to understand Christianity in Europe today than reading the Bible, would you counter with Ethiopia?

And of course, there were two other great Muslim "gunpowder empires" of the early Modern area - the Safavid Empire (which covered most of Greater Iran) and the Mughal Empire (Much of greater India, &c). Immediately preceding those were the Timurid and Mongol Empires, both of which had significant influence on the spread, expression and political role of Islam in Central Asia. These are naturally pivotal for understanding these regions (incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose a distant Sunni state for your "counterexample" - wouldn't Shia Iran be a more natural choice?)

The nature of Islam is one very broad contextual factor in the state of these societies/regions today and historically.

I strongly suggest you try to limit yourself to a region and a period, and study its history closely from a variety of perspectives, if you want to be able to make meaningful statements about those societies.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 19th October 2017 at 10:00 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:02 AM   #93
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The "actual argument" visible so far is, that one has to study ottoman history in close detail to be capable of understanding why in the eastern most province of Malaysia apostasy is punishable by prison. That does not make any sense.

Hence, i ask questions to understand what the argument is. Cause it cannot be that ridiculous.
The way you flaunt your anti-intellectual disposition is depressing as hell.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 10:11 AM   #94
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Look, here's an example how you can study the relationship between "Islam" and "Islamic societies" in a sensible way:

One of the most important factors for the development and maintenance of power structures in society is land ownership. Land can be bought, sold, conquered and inherited. The way land was inherited is known to have had significant influences on many societies in the middle ages - the Frankish empire is probably the most famous example.

One aspect of Islamic law that has generaly had more influence than criminal punishment, is indeed civil law dealing with property and inheritance. How has the application of laws of inheritance based on Sharia affected the distribution of land in selected Islamic societies historically? Did the introduction of Islam cause a shift in how land was inherited? In cases where Islam was imposed by a ruling (landowning) class, did this favour them? Are there any systemic effects that can be observed across Islamic societies today thanks to this?

That could potentially be a perfectly appropriate basis for a dissertation that could lead to a sensible and interesting thesis. That's how you approach the relationship between a cultural-contextual factor like religion and the state of society.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 11:03 PM   #95
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Ignoring the issue that such laws would not be acceptable under European law and propably law of the Netherlands, why is that racism?

There are "white" muslims, "black" muslims, etc. And there are non-muslim Arabs, etc.

So the group of people Wilders might want to have dsicriminative laws against does not share any common outward appearance, characteristics or ethinicity.

Furthermore, anyone could get rid of the charateristic Wilders might discriminate against by simply declaring to be non-muslim; so its not even an inherent and unchangable characteristic Wilders wants to use for discrimination.
I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.
In addition, Wilders’ words are an oversimplification that lumps together Al Qaeda and thousand of Muslims that fought for democracy in the Arab Spring —and were abandoned by "Judeo-Christian" governments that prefer dictators like Sisi to democracy. Many Netherlands Muslims respect democratic principles and will be offended with Wilders’ discriminative —and stupid— words.

This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 02:09 PM   #96
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.
In addition, Wilders’ words are an oversimplification that lumps together Al Qaeda and thousand of Muslims that fought for democracy in the Arab Spring —and were abandoned by "Judeo-Christian" governments that prefer dictators like Sisi to democracy. Many Netherlands Muslims respect democratic principles and will be offended with Wilders’ discriminative —and stupid— words.

This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.
"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe. At least some of the racism that emerged in the Colonial Era derived from late medieval Spain, where Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity were still denied the right to own property on the basis of "impure blood". Similarly, the moral contempt towards "blackness" was strongly associated with Muslims from the Middle east and North Africa. It needs to be noted that many different conceptualizations comparable to "race" and associated discrimination have existed in many different civilizations throughout history, and even today, there is not really a coherent understanding of what race means. The categories used in the U.S. are just one particular social construction emerging from that country's history.

No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort. If one feels the need to do it, then one needs to seriously, SERIOUSLY re-consider what one's motivations are.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 20th October 2017 at 02:10 PM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 10:46 PM   #97
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You're shooting yourself in the foot now. You weren't exclusively speaking of Malaysia. You're literally just making it harder for yourself by broadening the area you wish to make sweeping statements about.
I was speaking about Islam and/or islamic scripture and its effects on today world. Hence, i was speaking about Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Somalia, Tunesia and a host of other countries and regions.

You tried to argue that somehow what happened in some of those regions in 13th to 19th century was relevant to all of my argument. Hence, you claimed - without realizing cause you never realy understood what i was talking about - ALSO that Osman history was relevant for today Islam in Malaysia.


Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Seriously, the way you interpret this is purely malicious (or possibly very, very ignorant). If I said that the Holy Roman Empire was very important to understand the history of Christianity, and that medieval and Early Modern development of Christianity into the present day cannot be properly understood without studying the HRE closely, and that in fact studying the HRE and its interaction with the church was a much better way to understand Christianity in Europe today than reading the Bible, would you counter with Ethiopia?
If somebody offered statements/argument about "Christianity in Europe", then yes, countering with Ethopia would be stupid.

But i never suggested that i am just talking about Islam in Middle East. I talked about Islamic scripture, which is common in all of Islam, not only in the Middle East.


Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
(incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose a distant Sunni state for your "counterexample" - wouldn't Shia Iran be a more natural choice?)
No. Due to being neighbour of Osman empire, i would have to present some good argument that although being neighbours and therefore naturally influencing each other, the history of Osman empire is mostly irrelevant for Islam of today in Iran.

With Malaysia the distance is in itself nearly a sufficient argument for the politics of Osman empire being irrelevant.

You understand that if there are geographical vastly distant regions with vastly different histories and in both regions there are people suggesting that apostasy is too be punnished and support this by quoting verses of the exactly same holy book (which verses verbatim call for punishment of apostasy) in all of these vastly distant regions with different histories,

that then the claim that these common occurrence has little to do with the scripture but in each case is strongly connected to the individually different histories of those regions which somehow magically result in everywhere being some people in favor of punishment for apostasy

is hard to accept?


Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I strongly suggest you try to limit yourself to a region and a period, and study its history closely from a variety of perspectives, if you want to be able to make meaningful statements about those societies.
The regions have a common charateristics, for example that apostasy is either directly punishable by state law or is often punished "privately". Therefore there either has to be some common factor causing this OR due to chance similar practices arised in each case due to local causes.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 10:59 PM   #98
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know well Wilder's politics but some statements of him are indirectly racist. For example: 'Islam and freedom are not compatible' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7593466.html ) This sentence is apparently not directed against a racial group, but against a religion. But you cannot be unaware that in the particular circumstances of contemporary Netherlands Muslims are some clearly identifiable people with “racial” —this word is poison in itself— features.
So Wilders is racist with his statements about Islam because Muslims in Netherlands have common "racial characteristics".

How could somebody in Netherlands, who is of the opinion that Islam and freedom are not compatible, formulate the argument in a non-racist way?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is why we atheist have to be specially careful when we criticize the religion of Islam. Because we have to avoid to be identified with white supremacist that use religion as a screen of their racism without relinquishing defend our atheism. This is not easy.
I do not see how it might be possible.

Cause as a second issue, you implied one should tone down criticism of Islam where Muslims are a small minority.

So one would need to live in a country with sizeable Muslim population of diverse "racial background" and then it would be ok, to stand at midday in the public square and say that "Islam and freedom are not compatible"; if either the muslim population is not enough percentage of general population or if the muslims have common "racial charateristics" one has to tone it down somehow or remain silent.

As I cannot name any country fulfilling the criteria in which doing that in public square is not against the laws, it does not seem possible.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 11:08 PM   #99
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe. At least some of the racism that emerged in the Colonial Era derived from late medieval Spain, where Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity were still denied the right to own property on the basis of "impure blood". Similarly, the moral contempt towards "blackness" was strongly associated with Muslims from the Middle east and North Africa. It needs to be noted that many different conceptualizations comparable to "race" and associated discrimination have existed in many different civilizations throughout history, and even today, there is not really a coherent understanding of what race means. The categories used in the U.S. are just one particular social construction emerging from that country's history.

No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort. If one feels the need to do it, then one needs to seriously, SERIOUSLY re-consider what one's motivations are.
All social critique you ever voiced in your life about Christianity was only veiled racism.

How would you respond to that charge without using "It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" in one form or another?

Besides, if my opinion about Islam is racism, why is my emotional stance in regard to radical muslim preachers of "darker" skin colour nearly exactly identical to radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color?

(It is not identical, since all radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color i am aware of, were citizens of some country effectively in a low-scale war of attrition with radical Islamists, so these "white" radicals add to following a bloodthirsty brand of religion also treason, which makes me dislike them even more; but if not for their treason, i would probably dislike them exactly the same)
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:14 AM   #100
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
(...)

How could somebody in Netherlands, who is of the opinion that Islam and freedom are not compatible, formulate the argument in a non-racist way?
I do not see how it might be possible.

Cause as a second issue, you implied one should tone down criticism of Islam where Muslims are a small minority.

So one would need to live in a country with sizeable Muslim population of diverse "racial background" and then it would be ok, to stand at midday in the public square and say that "Islam and freedom are not compatible"; if either the muslim population is not enough percentage of general population or if the muslims have common "racial charateristics" one has to tone it down somehow or remain silent.

As I cannot name any country fulfilling the criteria in which doing that in public square is not against the laws, it does not seem possible.
No.I have not said that the criticism of Islam would be impossible, but that it need to be careful. And the first caution is not to lumps together all Muslims, as Wilder does. Of course, all the Holy Books that I know are incompatible with democracy. They were written in theocratic societies with a theocratic mentality. The Bible and gospels also. In my country the Bible and gospels were the foundations of a dictatorship that lasted more than 40 years. Every criticism to religion was banned and it involved diverse punishments. What makes Wilders a racist is not the criticism of Quran, but that he exclusively orients his condemn to the Quran. He claims for a Judeo-Christian culture without any criticism and calls for anti-Muslim legislation. Law has to be the same for ulemas and priests, churches or mosques or it will be discriminative.

We know that in some Christian majority countries atheism is not welcome and its public expression is persecuted by legal or popular means. But if a leader of a Muslim country says that gospels are incompatible with freedom it would sound a little discriminative. Is it not?

It is not impossible to criticize the Quran without giving support to the white supremacism. The key is to avoid pointing exclusively the Muslim community, lumping together terrorists with peaceful citizens and making it clear that our criticism doesn’t implies the scorn against those that make a moral and respectable reading of the Holy Books, even when we don’t share it. And so on.

I use similar cautions when I am discussing with some Christian friends. It is more important to do the same thing when speaking about a minority that endures constant racist attacks. And this is just the opposite that Wilders does.

A question: Has Wilders claimed for laws against racists that attack mosques? It is only curiosity.

Last edited by David Mo; 21st October 2017 at 12:24 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:18 AM   #101
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The regions have a common charateristics, for example that apostasy is either directly punishable by state law or is often punished "privately". Therefore there either has to be some common factor causing this OR due to chance similar practices arised in each case due to local causes.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, first, this is not uniform among Islamic countries. And second, such punishments have historically rarely been applied. Just appealing to the Qur'an is a useless way to understand radicalism/reactionarism in contemporary Islamic society. It is clear that the Qur'an is not even REMOTELY necessary or sufficient for these things to pop up in societies. Yes, Islamic scripture forms an important bit of context. But that is context in which we must still examine the facts of history and society. Appealing to the Qur'an itself does not grant understanding.


And since you are yappering about Malaysia, as I said it's not an area I'm well-read in, but as far as I can tell the movement to implement Hudud punishments and strengthen Sharia courts began in the 1990s. So guess what? Those historic Islamic empires are still really relevant. Modern radical/reactionary Islamic movements influence each other.

Please stop making excuses for remaining ignorant.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:22 AM   #102
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
All social critique you ever voiced in your life about Christianity was only veiled racism.
I'm not sure I ever voiced that much critique against Christianity. Certain sects and political movements, yes, but if I ever blamed the core religion, I was mistaken and yes, bigoted. It's not a useful way to approach the issue.

Quote:
Besides, if my opinion about Islam is racism, why is my emotional stance in regard to radical muslim preachers of "darker" skin colour nearly exactly identical to radical muslim preachers of "white" skin color?
Race is socially constructed. Actual skin colour matters less than how we stereotype people.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:35 AM   #103
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,180
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Look, here's an example how you can study the relationship between "Islam" and "Islamic societies" in a sensible way:

One of the most important factors for the development and maintenance of power structures in society is land ownership. Land can be bought, sold, conquered and inherited. The way land was inherited is known to have had significant influences on many societies in the middle ages - the Frankish empire is probably the most famous example.

One aspect of Islamic law that has generaly had more influence than criminal punishment, is indeed civil law dealing with property and inheritance. How has the application of laws of inheritance based on Sharia affected the distribution of land in selected Islamic societies historically? Did the introduction of Islam cause a shift in how land was inherited? In cases where Islam was imposed by a ruling (landowning) class, did this favour them? Are there any systemic effects that can be observed across Islamic societies today thanks to this?

That could potentially be a perfectly appropriate basis for a dissertation that could lead to a sensible and interesting thesis. That's how you approach the relationship between a cultural-contextual factor like religion and the state of society.
I like this. Exploring the real relations between formal belief systems and outcomes is key for understanding social behavior. Nevertheless, I'd like to reiterate a point I think important.

Critical for the long-term success of the practice of any new or old major religion in democratic societies is to retain the existing understanding of human rights, if they are to remain democratic and respectful of all rights. No more, no less. This logically leads to support for -- should one so wish -- withering criticism of the ideas expressed by any given, or this particular, religion. Not so the practitioners, as outcomes vary, as you point out.

Now, in that light, we OTOH do have the factual case of recent multiple attempts at the UN to introduce a ban on religious criticism. This is a specific instance of doctrine affecting sociopolitical behavior, along the lines of your argument, but no sweeping generality can be afforded this alone. Nevertheless, this effort is an attack on the current understanding of human rights. The response to such an attack, rather than to hush voices in respect, is, in my view, to double down, to insist on the right to disagree, and strongly, with any proposition. If any religion or philosophy wishes to join the fray, all are welcome. Any wishing to silence the party and rule alone, however, should not be.

Is this -phobia? It depends on how the analysis is done. For me, any rule wishing to incorporate its contradiction is flawed, such that one may agree to respect any given freedom of "x" in society, but not also simultaneously agree to granting such freedom of "x" if it is used to expressly deny that same freedom to any or all others. Not without blowing up the system. In short, to limit speech in accommodation of religion is a mistake, and so the incorporation of, say, Islam into democratic society ought to proceed without altering society in any way that is limiting of those rights. I belabor the point because there is that criticism that is licit in this manner, and there is that which is indeed phobia.

Getting back to your point, however, and mindful of the post just prior to this, note that the rising influence of a strain/sect/movement in Malaysia has had a tangible negative impact. I think any analysis of the effect of any doctrine must take into account the degree to which individuals feel there are others who think/feel the same, emboldening action (cf. Trump nuts, white nationalists, etc.). Public sanction of totalitarian action is an important factor, not only doctrinal content. It's what I termed an "enabling narrative" and discussed some years back as one of three triggering conditions for terrorist acts and violence.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 21st October 2017 at 04:38 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:59 AM   #104
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
I think laws surrounding religious criticism easily get thorny due to the ubiquity of religious persecution. In the case of the Islamic world, it's important to remember that radical/reactionary Islamic movements of the 20th century were by and large a reaction against Western imperialism. The Iranian Revolution was the ultimate victory against the meddling westerners. This of course creates a lot of tension in any debate surrounding these movements and their support.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 01:15 PM   #105
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, all the Holy Books that I know are incompatible with democracy. They were written in theocratic societies with a theocratic mentality. The Bible and gospels also. In my country the Bible and gospels were the foundations of a dictatorship that lasted more than 40 years. Every criticism to religion was banned and it involved diverse punishments. What makes Wilders a racist is not the criticism of Quran, but that he exclusively orients his condemn to the Quran.
Why is exclusive criticism of Quran not acceptable?

The different sciptures/core stories of religions are DIFFERENT. Quran is composed of different words than Bible.

Why should it not be possible that someone sincerely reaches the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

Note, i am here not making the argument that such is the case; i just ask why it can be excluded that someone honestly reaches that conclusion.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
A question: Has Wilders claimed for laws against racists that attack mosques? It is only curiosity.
I am not aware of that; but - like nearly every country - they have laws against tresspassing and damaging private property; so him not calling for such laws does not allow conclusion whether he is in favor of such attacks.

For what i know he is adamantly against special protections for religions, especially if that religion is Islam.

Last edited by Carn; 21st October 2017 at 01:19 PM.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:30 PM   #106
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,927
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Why is exclusive criticism of Quran not acceptable?
I think that I have already answered this question. See my comment #100
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The different sciptures/core stories of religions are DIFFERENT. Quran is composed of different words than Bible.
This is undeniable. But they are alike in many ways.
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Why should it not be possible that someone sincerely reaches the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?
It is possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others reach the conclusion that their Book is compatible with democracy. They only need forget many pages of it. It is not easy, but faith —in democracy— moves mountains.
In reality, almost all modern believers have experience in erasing what their Holy Book actually said by considering it as “allegoric”.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
I am not aware of that; but - like nearly every country - they have laws against tresspassing and damaging private property; so him not calling for such laws does not allow conclusion whether he is in favor of such attacks.
If you don’t know, we have no case.
Yes. My point is that if the state has protective laws about terrorism in general it is a discriminative politics to request laws against a particular belief, as if it was the only one that fosters terrorism. This is discriminative and incites violence against this community.

Last edited by David Mo; 21st October 2017 at 11:35 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:14 AM   #107
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I think that I have already answered this question. See my comment #100
But this would mean, exclusive criticism of Quran would have to be skipped until the day when "white supremacists" (or whatever one wants to call them) no longer exploit fear of Islam for their political goals.

I think "white supremacists" will always exploit such fears as long as such fears exist.

I think fears regarding Islam will exist as long as regularly some kind of atrocities are committed by people claiming to act in the name Of Allah.

So the day when one can offer exclusive criticism of Ouran would be in one option the day when no longer some people regularly commit some kind of atrocities supposedly in the name of Allah, cause only then the "white supremacists" can no longer exploit fears.

Or alternatively the day when world has somehow got rid of "white supremacists".


Presuming the latter never happens, one might find oneself in a perfect catch 22:

If one wants to argue, that the Quran has unlike some other holy books a greater potential to "encourage" some people to commit atrocities in the name of Allah, one has to postpone such argument (or at least the "greater" part) till the day when no longer people commit such atrocities in the name of Allah (or not more than in the name of other gods).

Which would just be the day, when such argument could no longer be true/valid.



Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It is possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others reach the conclusion that their Book is compatible with democracy. They only need forget many pages of it. It is not easy, but faith —in democracy— moves mountains.
In reality, almost all modern believers have experience in erasing what their Holy Book actually said by considering it as “allegoric”.
So you exclude the possibility that someone might sincerely based on reasoning avoiding any bias reach the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Yes. My point is that if the state has protective laws about terrorism in general it is a discriminative politics to request laws against a particular belief, as if it was the only one that fosters terrorism. This is discriminative and incites violence against this community.

And how would the state allowed to adjust the laws, if hypothetically some particular belief is fostering realy a lor more terrorism than all other beliefs combined and that a plausibel explanation seems to be that this is due to the content of the belief?


To remind, mostly political ideologies are equaly free to be promoted; but history shows that some political ideologies make human rights violations by governments following the respective ideology far more likely; and this is used by some countries as a justification to have special laws regarding such political ideologies.

Hence, when the state finds that some political ideologies are a lot more problematic than others, the state - at least in some countries - is allowed to tailor laws or even only the application of laws and other political measures specifically to weaken that ideology.

An example for this approach is visible even in this thread, in which some posters seem to argue, that "blasphemous" attacks on mosques should be punished especially severe if committed by right-wing extremist/nazis; that is specifically applying harsher punishments to followers of that political ideology probably with the intent to weaken the influence of that ideology with the underlying motivation based in observation that that ideology is a lot more dangerous than other ideologies.

And also, this was not a comparison, but just an example, that with ideologies the extent in which they foster violence and the connection of that with the content of the ideology is to some extent valid reason for the state is justified in treating that ideology different from others.

Which raises from my POV the above question, if and how the state might react to religions differing vastly in respect to fostering violence.

Last edited by Carn; 27th October 2017 at 04:16 AM.
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:35 AM   #108
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty.
Accuracy is now dishonesty! You heard it here first, folks!

Quote:
Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe.
Yeah, ever since that damned "catholic" race sent those damned Irish to America!

Quote:
No social critique that involves religion should ever come close to having to invoke an excuse of that sort.
It should when the critique elicits accusations of racism. It's simple: criticise a religion, get called racist, point out that the two aren't the same, and now you want to add another step where you call the previous step dishonest. Congratulations. Now we can't critique Islam without being dishonest AND racist!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:53 AM   #109
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Accuracy is now dishonesty! You heard it here first, folks!
Whatever semantics or socially constructed definition of "race" you use (presumably, skin colour) the pedantic drivel is dishonest, because it seeks to distract from the fact that the exact same social structures are involved in skin colour discrimination and Islamophobia. It is clear as day to anyone who cares to study history that Islamophobia today is rooted in ancient and modern ideas of "Eastern barbarism", "Asiatic despotism", "Orientalism", and the desire to see vices of "the East" as foils to virtues of "the West". These same ideas led to, for example, the extensive discrimination against the Chinese in America in the 19th century. But maybe that wasn't racist either?


Quote:
Yeah, ever since that damned "catholic" race sent those damned Irish to America!
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. A significant development in the conception of "biological" racism occurred in the late middle ages/early modern era. In most states in Europe, Jews and Muslims (when they were permitted to exist) suffered extensive discrimination - for example, prohibitions on owning property or holding certain professions. Traditionally, once they had converted to Christianity, they were usually (legally, if not in practice) considered equal to any other Christians. However, in the 15th and 16th century, perhaps partly due to economic development, the rate of conversion increased, resulting in converted former Jews and Muslims sometimes holding significant influence, which irked the "real" christians". Thus developed for example in Spain, the idea of them having "impure blood", the "Jewishness" and "Muslimness" persisting through conversion. For some it was maybe a matter of doubting their sincerity, for some it was thought that there was some sort of "Jewish essence" persisiting in them.

It also bears noting that "blackness" as a racial/moral characteristic was in most of the middle ages strongly associated with Islam.

Regardless, the advent of these ideas obviously helped perpetuate the atrocities of colonialism and the Transatlantic slave trade.


But sure, Islamophobia and racism have nothing to do with each other
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 04:54 AM   #110
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It should when the critique elicits accusations of racism. It's simple: criticise a religion, get called racist, point out that the two aren't the same, and now you want to add another step where you call the previous step dishonest. Congratulations. Now we can't critique Islam without being dishonest AND racist!
Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 05:05 AM   #111
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Whatever semantics or socially constructed definition of "race" you use (presumably, skin colour) the pedantic drivel is dishonest, because it seeks to distract from the fact that the exact same social structures are involved in skin colour discrimination and Islamophobia.
No, that's ridiculous. Religion is not race. Full stop. It's not dishonest IF IT'S TRUE.

Quote:
It is clear as day to anyone who cares to study history that Islamophobia today is rooted in ancient and modern ideas of "Eastern barbarism", "Asiatic despotism", "Orientalism", and the desire to see vices of "the East" as foils to virtues of "the West".


Quote:
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
If you're critiquing Christianity then you're a racist, too! Even though it has nothing to do with race. You only think that "islamophobia" (what a stupid word) is about race because apparently you don't realise that Islam crosses quite a few ethnic boundaries, just like Christianity does.

Quote:
But sure, Islamophobia and racism have nothing to do with each other
Argument from incredulity.

Quote:
Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.
I tried and have seen it tried, and invariably, even on this supposedly rational forum, it invites accusations of racism. Now, I know you'll say that it's because it wasn't non-bigoted, but that's because you can't distinguish the two: criticism is necessarily bigoted. You can't imagine that those who accuse others of racism could possibly ever make that accusation without cause. Listen and believe!

Actually, the very fact that you're trying so hard to equate critique with bigotry smacks of the exact sort of intellectual dishonesty you described.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 07:04 AM   #112
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, that's ridiculous. Religion is not race. Full stop. It's not dishonest IF IT'S TRUE.
Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 07:08 AM   #113
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".
Ok tell me: which "race" is Islam associated with? I'll wait before posting a map of majority-Muslim countries.

Alternatively: consider why you're unable to understand and agree to such an obvious and trivial fact.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 07:10 AM   #114
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Try discussing Islam in a non-bigoted way and see how many accusations you get.
Is it possible to criticize Islam in a non bigoted way?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 07:50 AM   #115
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ok tell me: which "race" is Islam associated with? I'll wait before posting a map of majority-Muslim countries.

Alternatively: consider why you're unable to understand and agree to such an obvious and trivial fact.
Whether this can be answered depends on your conception of "race". I would say the identification of Islam as "Eastern" is key. Though today people are more aware of its diversity, association of Islam with both Arabs and Turks (nebuluous concepts, historically) certainly is a source of prejudice.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is it possible to criticize Islam in a non bigoted way?
I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 08:05 AM   #116
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Whether this can be answered depends on your conception of "race". I would say the identification of Islam as "Eastern" is key.
"Eastern" is not a race, nor an ethnic group. It does seem like you're expending quite a bit of effort to avoid agreeing to an obvious fact.

The truth is that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd see an Indonesian and mistake them for an Arab.

So quit it with the accusations of racism and dishonesty, and focus on the actual points made in the critique.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 10:15 AM   #117
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
"Eastern" is not a race, nor an ethnic group.
It is most certainly an ethno-cultural distinction that has existed for a very long time. You know, the old tropes of "eastern hordes" and "oriental despots"? No? Perhaps studying some history is in order then.

You're engaging in the same sort of dumb semantics that people who insist "antisemitism" should include attacking Arabs because Arabs are Semites.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 27th October 2017 at 10:17 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 10:27 AM   #118
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
It is most certainly an ethno-cultural distinction that has existed for a very long time. You know, the old tropes of "eastern hordes" and "oriental despots"? No?
Ok, maybe you're simply not clear on what I'm saying, so let me try again. <clears throat> EASTERN IS NOT A RACE.

You can point out the distinction between west and east all you want but the fact remains that you're not talking about race anymore. Your claim was that the distinction between Islam and race was dishonest. Fact is, Islam has nothing to do with race, and you are basically proving that point for me.

Quote:
Perhaps studying some history is in order then.
Keep your condescension for yourself. Your own knowledge of the topics under discussion seems lacking, so you're in no position to correct anyone.

Quote:
You're engaging in the same sort of dumb semantics that people who insist "antisemitism" should include attacking Arabs because Arabs are Semites.
Except that "antisemite" has ALWAYS been a term directed at people who hate Jews, specifically. Islam has nothing to do with race, at all. Get that through your head.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 10:50 AM   #119
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,623
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ok, maybe you're simply not clear on what I'm saying, so let me try again. <clears throat> EASTERN IS NOT A RACE.
The concept of race is more nebulous than you assume.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 10:52 AM   #120
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Race is a social construct that has always had a degree of overlap with religion. When you engage in religious bigotry, you are engaging in the same sort of toxic discourse that racists do. "Religion is not race" is a hairsplitting didtraction in that context.

You might as well rant about "black culture" and claim you're not being racist. It's all about the construction of an "other".
You miss the important disctinction between "race" and "religion" that the former can never be changed by the human being identified as member of some "race", while - as you admitted yourself - "religion" can and even often is changed by humans.

Or may i presume you are a Christian(*)?

(There is some decent probability that your parents or grandparents were Christians; and then, just as someone with "black" parents is also "black" you would be Christian if there realy were no relevant differences).


And you miss the equally difference, that to some extent being willingly a member of a certain religion implies one holds certain things to be true. For example a muslim with probability bordering on 100% assumes Mohammed was a Prophet for the supreme good being; about which other people can have various opinions (which then could fuel criticism of Islam).

On the other hand, someone being "black" does not indicate that the person has certain opinions.

So you disregard that religion unlike "race" can be changed by the individual and that certain religions imply certain ideas (which may or may not be liked intellectually by other people).
Carn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.