Islamophobia

[drummindiver]

"No, I actually posted why."

So, video evidence is good enough for a court of law but not you. I could add any number of sarcastic yet bitingly cynical addendums, but I'll refrain.

"Ok. So I guess that means you HAVE seen the assertion now ?"

I had seen your assertions that other people had made these assertions.

"I did a quick search and got a quick result, so people on MLW do use that argument:"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/19994-face-veils-banned-for-citizenship-oaths/?p=741455

That's what you're going with?

1) I have never seen nor read anything from either of these posters before.

2) How about a little context?

"n some areas where that faith is practiced terrible physical punishments are still ordered against 'criminals', wife killing is condoned, yes we are better than that, our customs have proven to be better than theirs."

Does he state we're better? Yes, he does. Why does he state this? Well, because some of Islam's practices are barbaric. I don't think you can argue with wife (honour killing), or mutilating poverty stricken individuals for stealing bread? Stoning for adultery, killing for apostacy?

I won't state we are better though, just that Islam needs to realize in the 21 century that some of their more archaic rituals need to be replaced with more modern ones.

"And nothing you said contradicts my assertion that you could be doing it to feel better about our culture. There are lots of flaws in other religions. You could point out those too if you were conducting a fair and even-handed survey of religions, but you're not."

I'm not?

I've stated when I see a gang of Atheists beating up or killing people because they don't believe, I'll call BS on that also.

Same as Christians. Or whoever.

Just haven't seen it.

"Isn't that pointing out flaws in someone else's culture? Are you not, with that comment, pointing out flaws in someone elses culture? Just a yes or no please."

"No."

"And, anyway, my point is NOT that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but that there's no stated end point to this line of criticism. "

"acknowledge that Islamist terrorism comes from Islam, as I have done, then what ?"

So, Islamic terrorism isn't a flaw in someone's culture. Which means you are ok with it. Wow.

If you don't agree with all tenets of Islam, or all Muslim actions, you are branded Islamaphobic.

"That's not what it means by your own definition. You're just bringing noise into the discussion when you define something then write your own definition in right underneath."

Ok. The definition refers to fearing or disliking all members of the Islamic faith. Fair enough?

Do you agree that any criticism of Islam brings about the Islamaphobe moniker?

Of course you don't

Edited January 26, 2015 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

I have answered your points, and you just come back with more questions, opening up new threads of the discussion.

I think it's fair that you answer my questions now. I already asked and haven't heard an answer: What is the end point of this line of discussion?

[Mighty AC]

And ... what can/should/will be done about that ?

I'd like to see a more united front on universal morals. Whether you're a Christian, Muslim, atheist, black, white, brown, male or female, homophobia, misogyny, physical violence, rape and murder are still wrong. My fellow lefties tend to err on the side of morality, but far too many are wrong on the relativity of morality. Any defense of a violent foreign culture is just another blow to those the culture are oppressing.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd like ...

Beyond you getting what "you like"... what does this meeting of minds lead to, and how does it help in the grand scheme of things ?

[Mighty AC]

Beyond you getting what "you like"... what does this meeting of minds lead to, and how does it help in the grand scheme of things ?

We will see an end to evil being granted special cultural or religious protections. We don't have Muslim algebra and Christian calculus, we have algebra and calculus. Eventually we won't have Muslim and Christian morals...just morals grounded in human well being. Edited January 26, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

I'd like to see a more united front on universal morals. Whether you're a Christian, Muslim, atheist, black, white, brown, male or female, homophobia, misogyny, physical violence, rape and murder are still wrong. My fellow lefties tend to err on the side of morality, but far too many are wrong on the relativity of morality. Any defense of a violent foreign culture is just another blow to those the culture are oppressing.

The issue is what are you calling that "violent foreign culture"?

Too many people who are calling it Islam, Muslims or Arabs are painting with too broad a brush.

.

Edited January 26, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Yes they are.....Then people can identify those groups without generalizing to 'Muslims'.

Not all Christians are homophobic or deny evolution. Not all conservatives are science denying, big oil groupies. Yet, we don't feel the need to trip over ourselves identifying the offenders when we challenge Christians, CPCers or Republicans. The ridiculous precision demanded here by you and too many other lefties comes off as foolish and hypocritical.

True, so identify who's doing that. It isn't 'Muslims' in general.

Almost nobody accuses all Muslims, except for those pushing a competing religious agenda. However, you should keep in mind that when looking at the statistics on the percentage of Muslim populations that approve of various forms of evil from violence to murder and domestic abuse, the numbers are rarely low. Sure, 72% oppose violence towards offenders of Islam, but 28% isn't exactly low is it?

We won't be able to if we marginalize and alienate them with broadbrush stereotypes.

It's not the faith. It's the extremist violent sects.

It's both. The fundamentalists and extremists are really just more religious and truer to the scripture.

See, you just alienated all Muslims.

And you just defended another honour killing, and wife beater.

[Mighty AC]

The issue is what are you calling that "culture"?

People who are calling it Islam, Muslims or Arabs are painting with too broad a brush.

The issue is both the culture and the religion. People aren't simply radicalizing pretty words of tolerance and love. Edited January 26, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

How can we expect to work with peaceful Muslims if we have alienated them by lumping them together with violent jihadists?

.

Edited January 26, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

So how can we expect to work with peaceful Muslims if we have alienated them?

Peaceful Muslims are also against the evils of their religion and various cultures. Moderate Muslim leaders like Maajid Nawaz are among those that would tell us we cannot blame foreign policy of western nations and must challenge the way Islam is being taught and spread. Those on the front lines of this fight, from within, are against the BS western liberal apologist position.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/20/wrn-western-extremism-maajid-nawaz-intv.cnn

I agree with him, but would also like to see our parasitic foreign policy fixed as well.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

Not all Christians are homophobic or deny evolution. Not all conservatives are science denying, big oil groupies. Yet, we don't feel the need to trip over ourselves identifying the offenders when we challenge Christians, CPCers or Republicans.

I think I do.

eg,

Fundamentalists

Big oil boys

The ridiculous precision demanded here by you and too many other lefties comes off as foolish and hypocritical.

You mean we can accuse all men of all kinds of crimes committed by other men?

Almost nobody accuses all Muslims, except for those pushing a competing religious agenda. However, you should keep in mind that when looking at the statistics on the percentage of Muslim populations that approve of various forms of evil from violence to murder and domestic abuse, the numbers are rarely low. Sure, 72% oppose violence towards offenders of Islam, but 28% isn't exactly low is it?

No it isn't, and it grows everytime "Muslims" are collectively discriminated against.

It's both. The fundamentalists and extremists are really just more religious and truer to the scripture.

Are you talking about the Old Testament?

Pretty violent stuff.

And you just defended another honour killing, and wife beater.

See there ya go generalizing from criminals to all Muslims.

.

Edited January 26, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Are you talking about thr Old Testament?

Pretty violent stuff.

Extremely. So is the Quran.

See there ya go generalizing from criminals to all Muslims.

Really? These violent actions are condoned by large numbers of Muslims in many nations. These acts that you call criminal are often the law of the land. A law based in interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith.

[jacee]

Extremely. So is the Quran.

And in neither case do today's mainstream Christians or Muslims condone literal and violent interpretations.

Anyone today who practices 'an eye for an eye' literally, is viewed as criminal or crazy by mainstream Christians.

Likewise with most Muslims.

Really? These violent actions are condoned by large numbers of Muslims in many nations.

Right there. There's your mistake, generalizing, using the broad brush.

These acts that you call criminal are often the law of the land. A law based in interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith.

Some.

[WIP]

I'd like to see a more united front on universal morals. Whether you're a Christian, Muslim, atheist, black, white, brown, male or female, homophobia, misogyny, physical violence, rape and murder are still wrong. My fellow lefties tend to err on the side of morality, but far too many are wrong on the relativity of morality. Any defense of a violent foreign culture is just another blow to those the culture are oppressing.

I don't know what you determine to be "fellow lefties"....Bill Maher perhaps? But, moral relativism has nothing to do with left and right political ideologies.

The actual relativists in this world, are the ones who demand that every other nation in the world work for their interests....rubberstamp global capitalism, foreign troops and most important - allow the speedy access to their natural resources for our economies. That's the kind of relativism that makes most of the third world anti-western!

As for the "violent foreign culture," most of the growing violence breaking loose in the Middle East leads right back to regime change and attempted regime changes. If not wanting to go half way around the world and tell people how they are supposed to live, makes me a relativist - so be it! I got sick of evangelists a long time ago. People in other parts of the world have to sort out their own problems in their own ways. Assuming that they cannot develop their own reform movements without a foreign hand to guide them, is condescending and demeaning.

[WIP]

We will see an end to evil being granted special cultural or religious protections. We don't have Muslim algebra and Christian calculus, we have algebra and calculus. Eventually we won't have Muslim and Christian morals...just morals grounded in human well being.

An atheist philosopher (who evangelical new atheists seem to hate) Alain de Button, made the observation a couple of years back, that the problem with atheist morality or atheist claims of having morality, is that it contains no ritual...like regular time-consuming practice to focus attention, it requires no personal sacrifice, nor any social obligations. It can just be a collection of handy phrases for rhetorical purposes, but morality has to be put in practice, not on a wish list, or some clouded humanist claims of promoting general wellbeing. That can mean almost anything. Even Dick Cheney is a utilitarian today! Claiming his promotion of the use of torture, the Iraq Invasion, secret prisons, the surveillance industrial complex etc. was all necessary for the greater good.

One thing that needs to be said regarding systems of ethics is that some people...for whatever reasons, do not have that inner voice guiding them to make good choices, and without a clear set of rules, they are completely amoral. So, for some, divine command ethics is better than nothing!

[WIP]

No, I am not saying that. Western countries have interfered in the middle east for numerous reasons, including oil....................................

And your very long history lesson failed to acknowledge the fact that while the nations of Europe claim to have spread enlightenment values around the world, the view from the rest of the world, was a pack of vultures and opportunists, plundering their lands for wealth, enslaving their people on a scale never known before in history (prior to England and America, no slave-holding culture practiced eugenics and deliberately tried to breed slaves for field work, domestic work and sex slaves). And of course we could mention that as Europe spread forth and colonized the world, they caused more death and destruction than any other empires in history....although part of that was from the diseases they spread with them....I'll give you that!

And, in the 20th century, America worked behind the scenes to displace England and become the global empire that is still trying to control the entire world! Put it all in perspective, and a lot of those Arabs, Asians, Latin Americans, have a lot that they can bitch about!

[WIP]

This collective victimhood is the thing which gets to anyone's nerves. Newsflash for every muslim and every muslim-huggers: Almost nobody thinks that all muslims are terrorists.

All the more reason to get irritated about the whinging and whining about rising islamophobia after every event of islamic terrorism.

No, what galls us "muslim-huggers" is that 90% or more of the verbal and physical assaults are done to women or children by gutless patriots I suppose!

[jacee]

One thing that needs to be said regarding systems of ethics is that some people...for whatever reasons, do not have that inner voice guiding them to make good choices, and without a clear set of rules, they are completely amoral. So, for some, divine command ethics is better than nothing!

Ya but I doubt they're in church.

And if they are, they're learning to toe the line for the greater good .. of the amoral businessmen who donate money to the church.

.

Edited January 26, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

And in neither case do today's mainstream Christians or Muslims condone literal and violent interpretations.

Anyone today who practices 'an eye for an eye' literally, is viewed as criminal or crazy by mainstream Christians.

Likewise with most Muslims.

Agreed. Unfortunately far more Muslims still accept and even demand a literal interpretation. The Bible is such a horribly written, long, self-contradictory mess that it is easier to cherry pick. It's why most 'real Christians' don't actually read it. The Quran on the other hand, is streamlined with a strong central message. It's based on an ass kicking, sex slave owning, warlord. Sure the old Testament has an insecure, genocidal maniac, at the helm, but then along came the new testament and it stars a hippie street preacher. Not exactly the same.

Anyway, there are many factors involved in loosening a population's grip on mythology, but I think the better writing and violent central character in the Quran play a role.

Right there. There's your mistake, generalizing, using the broad brush.

No...that is your mistake. In first world nations, removed from the cultural aspect you like to blame, Muslim populations still support violence in high numbers. In the US where one might expect a response rate of 2-3% condoning killing for Islam, we see 20% support.

[Mighty AC]

I don't know what you determine to be "fellow lefties"....Bill Maher perhaps? But, moral relativism has nothing to do with left and right political ideologies.

Agreed, but there seem to be more on the left in developed nations defending evil, immoral practices of other cultures even though they would condemn the same acts committed at home. The opposite problem is prevalent with more on the right. They tend to correctly call out the immoral acts of Muslim states, while simultaneously defending Christian evil.

As for the "violent foreign culture," most of the growing violence breaking loose in the Middle East leads right back to regime change and attempted regime changes. If not wanting to go half way around the world and tell people how they are supposed to live, makes me a relativist - so be it! I got sick of evangelists a long time ago. People in other parts of the world have to sort out their own problems in their own ways. Assuming that they cannot develop their own reform movements without a foreign hand to guide them, is condescending and demeaning.

The violence existed long before parasitic western interference, but I agree with you here. We certainly need to stop meddling in leadership of other nations, while also offering support to the oppressed. As I've mentioned, repeatedly, ending our dependence on oil will not only help repair environmental and health issues, but it will also end our perceived need to control the ME.

[Mighty AC]

One thing that needs to be said regarding systems of ethics is that some people...for whatever reasons, do not have that inner voice guiding them to make good choices, and without a clear set of rules, they are completely amoral. So, for some, divine command ethics is better than nothing!

Let's compare North American laws that govern our conduct to the lessons of the Bible. Modern societal morals have progressed far beyond the eye for an eye justice, slavery, violence and misogyny condoned by a so called divine leader. What is the source of these superior societal morals?

[-1=e^ipi]

And in neither case do today's mainstream Christians or Muslims condone literal and violent interpretations.

Did you not see the pew research results? The MAJORITY of muslims world wide think that homosexuals should be killed and that apostasy should be a crime.

Anyone today who practices 'an eye for an eye' literally, is viewed as criminal or crazy by mainstream Christians.

I know, right! 'An eye for an eye' would be an improvement over MAINSTREAM Islam, which lacks the concept of recprocity and treats non-muslim as subhuman. Not to mention, 'an eye for an eye' is probably above the current pope's moral system (see his comments on Charlie Hebdo and punching people).

[-1=e^ipi]

And your very long history lesson failed to acknowledge the fact that while the nations of Europe claim to have spread enlightenment values around the world, the view from the rest of the world, was a pack of vultures and opportunists, plundering their lands for wealth, enslaving their people on a scale never known before in history (prior to England and America, no slave-holding culture practiced eugenics and deliberately tried to breed slaves for field work, domestic work and sex slaves). And of course we could mention that as Europe spread forth and colonized the world, they caused more death and destruction than any other empires in history....although part of that was from the diseases they spread with them....I'll give you that!

All of what you wrote above, even if correct, does not contradict anything I wrote regarding the history of the relationship between the Middle East and 'The West' and how your 'it's all about oil' hypothesis fails. Slaves taken from Western Central Africa to the Americas have little if any relevance with respect to the 'it's all about oil' hypothesis.

[eyeball]

As I've mentioned, repeatedly, ending our dependence on oil will not only help repair environmental and health issues, but it will also end our perceived need to control the ME.

What about the end of the western extremist's dependency on Israel? The end you're imagining is just a myth...literally.

[Mighty AC]

What about the end of the western extremist's dependency on Israel? The end you're imagining is just a myth...literally.

You don't think Israeli support will wane after we've lost interest in that region?