58% of Muslims want criticism of Islam Illegal!

[Michael Hardner]

The left cannot tolerate criticism of Islam because generally the criticism comes from white folks and generally it is aimed at non white folks.

The left has its levels. Racism is at the top. They will turn a blind eye to sexism and homophobia even unto the deaths of those involved to avoid the impression of colonial condescension. They will turn a blind eye to the murder and mayhem that Muslims daily wreak upon each other for the same reasons.

I don't know if people would consider me left or right, but I would base my criticism of Mr. Canada's ideas (such as the idea he has posted that Obama wants to make criticism of Islam illegal in America) on facts. You seem to want to make the criticism about the people themselves.

It would be easy for me to go after Mr. Canada's character but I want to discuss his ideas.

They can't understand that if you or I don't like the idea of women being oppressed, (for one example, among many) and say so, that it's actually because we don't like the idea of women being oppressed, and not just because we don't like those awful Arabs.

And if I point out that it's fallacious and xenophobic to assume somebody from some country is an oppressor of women, it will be said that I shouted down someone's opinion and people will bawl that they were called racist.

Here are my steps to discussing these issues:

1) Let's have people state some real facts, i.e. data statistics that are objective as a basis for some discussions.

2) Let's talk about:

Why ? (Why are we discussing this ?)

What ? (What does this mean ?)

Where ? (Where does the discussion go from here ?)

Normally I would put #2 before #1, but since many on here post facts first, I'd like all of us to put a filter on that discussion collectively before we continue. As such, we hardly ever seen to get to #2.

[Michael Hardner]

I think what he's saying is that the two are not analogous at all.

I'm sure he can make his own arguments without you helping him along.

I'm still waiting for him to address the assertion that Obama will soon change the constitution - somehow. I'd love for Mr. Canada to bump up a strength level in his arguments here. He's getting better... maybe admitting a troll will be a growing experience for him.

[bleeding heart]

The left cannot tolerate criticism of Islam because generally the criticism comes from white folks and generally it is aimed at non white folks.

There exists no "left" as this monolithic entity of which you are broadlyy remarking.

They can't understand that if you or I don't like the idea of women being oppressed, (for one example, among many) and say so, that it's actually because we don't like the idea of women being oppressed, and not just because we don't like those awful Arabs.

There's some truth to this, but it has nothing specifically to do with the political Left.

When differing worldviews become calcified as ideologies (which they seemingly inevitably do) then genuine battle lines are drawn.

So yes, people become reluctant to criticise what obviously demands critique. (Though they do criticize it; just not when speaking to the hawks, basically.)

At any rate, a big part of the reluctance is fear of casting votes for an omnibus bill. To clarify:

Some lefty, let's say, might be profoundly disturbed by what he sees as power-politics, rapacious geostrategic meddling, a sort of neo-imperialism which dares not speak its name.

Further still, he sees (as I do, incidentally) that this thing called the "War on Terror" is farcical on its face, its adherents not slightly different from religious believers.

So while he agrees wholeheartedly with the critiques of political Islam, with the shoddy treatment of people, particularly of women, he objects to what he views as the guiding premise behind the rhetoric: a defense of militarized, de facto global rule by a little cabal...who just happen to be behaving the same way they've behaved towards Muslim-majority nations when "terrorism" was not even a buzzword.

Further still, they object to another premise which they see as pretty plainly implied: that a benevolent little group of allied countries flits about with excellent intentions...intentions that are always misunderstood by bad-tempered Muslims, godless communists, uneducated Latin American peasants, the very women whom our Feminists-in-Chiefs claim are a guiding principle of our military actions...and of course, the fifth Columnist self-haters, the contemporary domestic "Left."

This is what a lot of folks critical of Western power view as undergirding so many debates and discussions on the matter.

Now obviously, conservatives (and self-described moderates) indulge in exactly the same behaviour, and it comes from a similar impulse, also thanks to the drawing of battle lines, and of the genuine concerns about supporting some greater (say, "socialist," or insert boogeyman of choice) notion which they find distressing.

[Guest]

I don't know if people would consider me left or right, but I would base my criticism of Mr. Canada's ideas (such as the idea he has posted that Obama wants to make criticism of Islam illegal in America) on facts. You seem to want to make the criticism about the people themselves.

It would be easy for me to go after Mr. Canada's character but I want to discuss his ideas.

And if I point out that it's fallacious and xenophobic to assume somebody from some country is an oppressor of women, it will be said that I shouted down someone's opinion and people will bawl that they were called racist.

Here are my steps to discussing these issues:

1) Let's have people state some real facts, i.e. data statistics that are objective as a basis for some discussions.

2) Let's talk about:

Why ? (Why are we discussing this ?)

What ? (What does this mean ?)

Where ? (Where does the discussion go from here ?)

Normally I would put #2 before #1, but since many on here post facts first, I'd like all of us to put a filter on that discussion collectively before we continue. As such, we hardly ever seen to get to #2.

It is not fallacious and xenophobic to assume that a country or a religion is an oppressor of women if they oppress women. As a matter of culture, and law. It's simply stating a fact. One can always qualify it by stating that one doesn't mean absolutely everyone who lives there or comes from there, but that should be implied when talking about Islam, as there are over a billion believers.

An accusation of xenophobia is an accusation of racism, pretty much. These days. Unless you mean phobia in it's true sense, which seems to be lost these days.

The facts concerning Islam assault us every day from all media.

[Argus]

Bud has a good point. Literal interpretation of a holy book crosses all religions. My guess is that many Christians would also like speech perceived as anti-Christian to be outlawed as well.

Maybe, but they won't cut the heads off people who insult Jesus.

[DogOnPorch]

By definition, if you believe the bible is the absolute truth then you believe in Leviticus, right ?

No...provide examples of it in action.

I agree, but you can be part-crazy and still lead a perfectly agreeable life. I wouldn't ever condemn people for following their religion as long as it is subordinate to allowing others to live their lives.

I don't care what one does in their bedroom.

No, by definition. Example:

Step 1 ) Question: Why does this group of people behave in this way ?

Step 2 ) Answer: It's because their holy book is crazy !

Step 3 ) Question: How do you know their holy book makes this group of people crazy, when all holy books have crazy things ?

Step 4 ) Answer: Just look at how the people who follow that book behave ! Their behavior is crazy !

It's circular. Do you see ?

No...Islam came last thus is the truth,

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

http://quran.com/5/51

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/destroy-all-churches/

[Michael Hardner]

It is not fallacious and xenophobic to assume that a country or a religion is an oppressor of women if they oppress women.

I agree.

As a matter of culture, and law. It's simply stating a fact.

The matter of culture assumes that nations have monolithic and exclusive cultures, though so you're already starting to drift, but ok...

One can always qualify it by stating that one doesn't mean absolutely everyone who lives there or comes from there, but that should be implied when talking about Islam, as there are over a billion believers.

Right, but it's not implied when we're talking about posters around here - generally. As long as we have one poster who posts nonsense or bad logic, we have to spell it out every time, it seems.

An accusation of xenophobia is an accusation of racism, pretty much. These days. Unless you mean phobia in it's true sense, which seems to be lost these days.

No - I got lectured about that recently, maybe by Argus I don't remember. There's discrimination, prejudice, bias, racism, xenophobia... all different things. I don't see why we need to differentiate so much but if I can make demands on the accuracy of other posters so can they.

The facts concerning Islam assault us every day from all media.

Right. Here's a news flash - don't believe news flashes.

[Michael Hardner]

No...provide examples of it in action.

I didn't assert that it was happening - I was countering your assertion that fundamentalist Muslims are by definition different.

No...Islam came last thus is the truth,

And Christianity came from the son of God Himself - do you really think that quoting from the content of these religions will take our discussion anywhere useful ?

[Guest]

I agree.

The matter of culture assumes that nations have monolithic and exclusive cultures, though so you're already starting to drift, but ok...

Nations have predominant cultures. There are many non muslims in Pakistan who do not think an accusation of blasphemy should bring the death penalty, for instance, but they have little say in the matter

Right, but it's not implied when we're talking about posters around here - generally. As long as we have one poster who posts nonsense or bad logic, we have to spell it out every time, it seems.

On my old board it was generally assumed once one got to know the other posters. Some had it as a sig for a while, if I recall correctly.

Right. Here's a news flash - don't believe news flashes.

Fox News, no. BBC, I thought I might.

[Michael Hardner]

Nations have predominant cultures. There are many non muslims in Pakistan who do not think an accusation of blasphemy should bring the death penalty, for instance, but they have little say in the matter

Sure, but arguing whether a country through laws or practice is an oppressor is a little easier than arguing the roots of the oppression takes place.

On my old board it was generally assumed once one got to know the other posters. Some had it as a sig for a while, if I recall correctly.

If it was assumed, why would you need to put it in your sig ? Anyway, moving on. We don't move on from the basics here, in many instances.

[Guest]

There exists no "left" as this monolithic entity of which you are broadlyy remarking.

It gets a little fuzzy around the edges sometimes, but they know who they are.

There's some truth to this, but it has nothing specifically to do with the political Left.

When differing worldviews become calcified as ideologies (which they seemingly inevitably do) then genuine battle lines are drawn.

So yes, people become reluctant to criticise what obviously demands critique. (Though they do criticize it; just not when speaking to the hawks, basically.)

I do not find this. I can't imagine gangs of Young Socialists, Feminists and Union activists getting together in a quiet bar to secretly lambast Islam. I think they ignore it, as best they can, giving up a reluctant, "oh well, of course I don't like it, but...) when pressed.

At any rate, a big part of the reluctance is fear of casting votes for an omnibus bill. To clarify:

Some lefty, let's say, might be profoundly disturbed by what he sees as power-politics, rapacious geostrategic meddling, a sort of neo-imperialism which dares not speak its name.

Further still, he sees (as I do, incidentally) that this thing called the "War on Terror" is farcical on its face, its adherents not slightly different from religious believers.

So while he agrees wholeheartedly with the critiques of political Islam, with the shoddy treatment of people, particularly of women, he objects to what he views as the guiding premise behind the rhetoric: a defense of militarized, de facto global rule by a little cabal...who just happen to be behaving the same way they've behaved towards Muslim-majority nations when "terrorism" was not even a buzzword.

That guiding premise might be in their imagination only. My guiding premise when arguing on this point is the behaviour of Muslims, not the response by the west. I generally agree with that response, especially when it is in retaliation, but that's nothing to do with why I post on a thread like this, and I don't believe it should have any bearing on valid criticism.

Further still, they object to another premise which they see as pretty plainly implied: that a benevolent little group of allied countries flits about with excellent intentions...intentions that are always misunderstood by bad-tempered Muslims, godless communists, uneducated Latin American peasants, the very women whom our Feminists-in-Chiefs claim are a guiding principle of our military actions...and of course, the fifth Columnist self-haters, the contemporary domestic "Left."

This is what a lot of folks critical of Western power view as undergirding so many debates and discussions on the matter.

Now obviously, conservatives (and self-described moderates) indulge in exactly the same behaviour, and it comes from a similar impulse, also thanks to the drawing of battle lines, and of the genuine concerns about supporting some greater (say, "socialist," or insert boogeyman of choice) notion which they find distressing.

Again, that's another thread. That you are cynical regarding the intentions of one country or religion does not mean you have to use it to temper criticism of another.

Islam is an atrocious and vicious religion when it is practiced in backward countries like many in the middle east. It is murderously intolerant, an intolerance which has no equal, anywhere on earth in a comparably sized group.

That said, lots of Muslims are nice and sometimes the US, Canada and the UK do bad things.

[Michael Hardner]

Islam is an atrocious and vicious religion when it is practiced in backward countries like many in the middle east. It is murderously intolerant, an intolerance which has no equal, anywhere on earth in a comparably sized group.

I haven't heard the blame put on Islam quite in that way before but there are a lot of things that don't turn out well in "backward" countries, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm not sure how the local religious customs factor into it, but I'm back to the previous points about talking about starting with objective facts, then moving to a reasoned discussion next.

[DogOnPorch]

I didn't assert that it was happening - I was countering your assertion that fundamentalist Muslims are by definition different.

Well then they MUST be different otherwise we'd be seeing Christian rage every time somebody made a Catholic priest joke.

And Christianity came from the son of God Himself - do you really think that quoting from the content of these religions will take our discussion anywhere useful ?

Typical. It's their words and their belief...why wouldn't they take it verbatim? The Koran says what it says. I'm not going to take YOUR word for it that they get to pick and choose what they believe.

There is no radical Islam...lol.

[Guest]

Sure, but arguing whether a country through laws or practice is an oppressor is a little easier than arguing the roots of the oppression takes place.

I'm not sure what you mean there. The roots of oppression in Islam are that religion's absolute refusal to advance with the times. Arabian culture was once far ahead of the west with regards to science and technology. Their reluctance to separate religion from governance is at the root of their oppression

If it was assumed, why would you need to put it in your sig ? Anyway, moving on. We don't move on from the basics here, in many instances.

Maybe they were insecure. Or new.

Edited November 3, 2012 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Well then they MUST be different otherwise we'd be seeing Christian rage every time somebody made a Catholic priest joke.

Ok, so you're moving on from your previous assertion then ? Ok.

What's the new assertion, that there's a different response to Christian blasphemy than Muslim blasphemy ?

Yes, that's pretty obvious, I think.

Typical. It's their words and their belief...why wouldn't they take it verbatim? The Koran says what it says. I'm not going to take YOUR word for it that they get to pick and choose what they believe.

We're back to the previous circular argument again. Let's talk about why you think that their book is causing them to behave this way, while the Christian book doesn't cause that ?

There is no radical Islam...lol.

That's a strawman. Of course it's not true. Why don't you argue from a real standpoint instead of throwing up all these distractions ? There are other posters on here who value these discussion as evidenced by their posting serious points.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, I refuse to play your game.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure what you mean there. The roots of opression in Islam are that religion's absolute refusal to advance with the times.

Can you explain that one ? How is a religion separate from the culture of the nation where it lives ? How can you put the blame of "backwardness" - your word - on the religion so easily ? It's a pretty tough analysis to make - you'd have to understand an entire field of social and societal factors. We haven't seen arguments anywhere near that complex on here.

I posted about an article I read on Nigerian mob violence, that lay the blame on some social factors. As simple as that was, it surpassed most of what we seen on here in terms of complexity.

Arabian culture was once far ahead of the west with regards to science and technology. Their reluctance to separate religion from governance is at the root of their oppression

Ok - that's better. Any other factors to consider ? How about western politics and religion using them as a pawn, can we consider that here or will somebody say that we're pointing fingers at Christianity, blaming etc ?

Maybe they were insecure. Or new.

And we have new posters here almost every week too.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, I refuse to play your game.

Ok, let the record show that you left the discussion after I asked you some (admittedly) difficult questions.

Please don't post that others scared you away by accusing you of racism, or that others refused to answer questions. The conversation got too hard for you and you left.

[DogOnPorch]

Ok, let the record show that you left the discussion after I asked you some (admittedly) difficult questions.

Please don't post that others scared you away by accusing you of racism, or that others refused to answer questions. The conversation got too hard for you and you left.

I can refuse all I wish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K5OICi7acA

The above is not a true Scotsman.

[Michael Hardner]

I can refuse all I wish.

Most definitely. In fact, I respect you for bowing out rather than to continue under duress, or to risk getting personal on it. Cheers.

[DogOnPorch]

Most definitely. In fact, I respect you for bowing out rather than to continue under duress, or to risk getting personal on it. Cheers.

I'm not leaving this discussion. I'm just not going to play your game. That Muslim pretty much states that you have the freedom to live by Islam's rules. Is he a radical terrorist of some kind? A minority?

[Guest]

I haven't heard the blame put on Islam quite in that way before but there are a lot of things that don't turn out well in "backward" countries, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm not sure how the local religious customs factor into it, but I'm back to the previous points about talking about starting with objective facts, then moving to a reasoned discussion next.

You didn't put the last line in, which puts the quote in context.

I recognise that there are many people, Muslims, like Salmaan Taseer, who wish to bring Islam and their countries forward into the new millenium. They always run the risk of getting shot, or worse, and I have the utmost respect for their courage.

[DogOnPorch]

Or this fellow? Seems quite reasonable...

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not leaving this discussion. I'm just not going to play your game. That Muslim pretty much states that you have the freedom to live by Islam's rules. Is he a radical terrorist of some kind? A minority?

I suppose I do have the freedom to do so?

But what kind of game are we playing if you ask ME questions but are unable to answer mine?

Have you some kind of unquestioning faith that makes you avoid reflection? If so, I understand.

[Michael Hardner]

You didn't put the last line in, which puts the quote in context.

.

Sorry. If I had then I probably would have asked whether we're talking about Arabian culture... or Islam maybe.