(November 1, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Drich Wrote: So, Next time a muslim tell you are a racist for not agreeing with what ever religious thing he is trying to sell, tell him to "go pound sand!"

Because if you are not 'muslim' then you to all of them are a member of that 'great unworthy race' (Despite the color of your skin) you infidel!

I don't know any Muslim in real life (as in people I personally know) that believes all non-Muslims are unworthy race or disbelievers/infidels or destine to hell. Maybe this is a case of pot calling the kettle back?

Whether the Quran should be interpreted as in non-Muslims all go to hell or not is besides the point. Most Muslims and classical and current scholars all didn't interpret like that.

I dislike all religion, especially the Abrahamic religions.

I have been called a racist because I don't like Islam,
but nobody calls me a racist for disliking Christianity.

yet both Islam and Christianity are huge religions lapping over many races.

There are Caucasian Muslims. There are black Christians

a Tibetan Buddhist monk is every bit as foreign to me as an Arab Muslim,
but you don't hear the media banging on about "buddhismphobia", do you?

I have a great deal of respect for an Arab born in an Islamic theocracy who becomes an Apostate.

I struggle to contain an eyeroll whenever ANY member of a free and secular society, of ANY race,
chooses to convert to ANY religion, later in their life, of their own free will,
not having been raised with it.

Quote: might make you a racist.

Nah....just a hypocrite.  Xtians should be used to being hypocrites.

(November 2, 2015 at 6:44 pm)MTL Wrote: I have been called a racist because I don't like Islam,
but nobody calls me a racist for disliking Christianity.

It all depends on the choice of words and meaning. When I'm vocal about any religion, I talk about the religion and not the people believing in that particular religion. Unless they are radicals. There are a great many rightwing movements, making it their business to throw the blanket over all muslims to cash in some political dime by pointing to a commong enemy. In that sense it's much like antisemitism in the 20ies and 30ies. Present a scapegoat and offer an easy solution to all the problems you're facing. Among these groups the so called Sweden Democrats. I highly suspect that OP is influenced by their hate mongering, but I can't be sure.

(November 2, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Am I the only one that noticed this thread is over a year old?

Nope.

(November 2, 2015 at 7:04 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 2, 2015 at 6:44 pm)MTL Wrote: I have been called a racist because I don't like Islam,
but nobody calls me a racist for disliking Christianity.

It all depends on the choice of words and meaning. When I'm vocal about any religion, I talk about the religion and not the people believing in that particular religion. Unless they are radicals. There are a great many rightwing movements, making it their business to throw the blanket over all muslims to cash in some political dime by pointing to a commong enemy. In that sense it's much like antisemitism in the 20ies and 30ies. Present a scapegoat and offer an easy solution to all the problems you're facing. Among these groups the so called Sweden Democrats. I highly suspect that OP is influenced by their hate mongering, but I can't be sure.

I'm not completely buying into this distinguishing between Islam and Muslims thing.

If there were no Muslims there wouldn't be any Islam.

if there were no Christians there wouldn't be any Christianity.

If someone is member of a golf club that is restricted and doesn't allow non-whites to become members,
but that person tells you that they didn't make the rules,
they only joined the club because of the good lunch menu and free parking,
you would still hold them accountable for being members of a club that is bad at its core.

I fully allow that there are non-extreme Muslims and non-extreme Christians.

I know there are both good AND bad people who are Theists,
and both good AND bad people who are Atheists, too.

If people believe in God without adhering to ANY religion or dogma,
I have no problem with that;

But if you feel the need to align yourself with a club (religion)
then no matter how good a person you are,
I am going to, on some level,
assume that you tolerate or condone the evils done by that club.

EDIT:

I am also speaking specifically about being a member of a club that you could just as easily ignore
(as opposed to being a citizen of a country, for instance,
rather than face the daunting prospect of becoming Stateless;
or voting for the political party that you feel is LEAST harmful to your country,
rather than forego your vote, altogether).

Religion is not necessary.

And, religion is also usually highly flawed,
...especially for something that claims to be in service of the Divine.

Therefore I have little patience with anyone consenting to be a member of it.

(November 2, 2015 at 7:15 pm)MTL Wrote: I'm not completely buying into this distinguishing between Islam and Muslims thing.

If there were no Muslims there wouldn't be any Islam.

if there were no Christians there wouldn't be any Christianity.

But I do. I don't blame any religious person for what their radicals do. I blame them if they actually are radicals. Anything else is bigotry to me. Making blanket statements about any given group is bigotry and ultimately dangerous. It's the very reason why I don't have any extended family anymore. And I never will respect anyone doing it. Call it racism, call it anything else, it's just semantics. The underlying feeling when making blanket statements is one of exclusion and one of better off if they didn't exist.

(November 2, 2015 at 7:21 pm)abaris Wrote: Making blanket statements about any given group is bigotry and ultimately dangerous.

The underlying feeling when making blanket statements is one of exclusion and one of better off if they didn't exist.

...he said, making a blanket statement.

I resent being called a bigot, because I find racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism appalling.

I find them appalling because things like race, age, gender, orientation and ability
are things people cannot change,
and should not have to be ashamed-of.

But from where I stand, Religion is in a class by itself,
and should never have been "protected" in the exact same way that these other things are protected.

1.  Religion is ideology.  It is a choice, it is not naturally-occuring, like your gender, age or race.

(And it isn't even political ideology, based on practical, real-world considerations,
and therefore open to debate.

It is ideology based on differing claims of "Divine" intention
and for that reason often tries to prohibit any contest or criticism).

It would be fine and good to talk about religious freedom in the context of Pilgrims coming to the New World to escape religious persecution in their country of origin;

but I think I scarcely need illustrate the flip-side of that coin, to Atheists;

....how corruptible and evil religion can be at its worst,
and how, even at its most innocuous, it can be guilty of acting out of privilege,
as we so often see with Christian America.

2.  Religion is unnecessary.
It is entirely possible for people to believe in God without strapping all kinds of dogma onto Him.

I find it a bit contradictory that so many Atheists criticize Agnosticism as being a watered-down version of Atheism, when in fact I think allowing for the possibility...however remote...for the existence of a God is an important step to promoting the idea to Theists of something more logical and less volatile, like Deism, over the dogmas, especially the Abrahamic dogmas;

yet I apparently fit the description of "bigot"
simply because I refuse to separate the Religion from the Religious.

3. Religion is unproven

If someone could prove to me tomorrow that one religion over another was, beyond all contest,
the "right" one, then I would be the first to sign up.....but they can't.

yet, their "religious freedom" to profess something as "Truth"
...when it is just an unsubstantiated theory...is PROTECTED.

Why are Theists not REQUIRED to always present their religion as a BELIEF,
...rather than being allowed to pass it off as TRUTH??


To me, it is the constitutional protection of religion, or dogma
...as opposed to the protection, for example, of mere personal faith in God...
that results in cases like Kim Davis.

You protect people's right to adhere and profess a dogma,
and it seems to come with strings of privilege attached.

So, perhaps you're right.

Perhaps I'm a bigot,

because I see religion as not only the single biggest evil in the world,
but the most tenacious, the most difficult to oppose,
and the most needless.

And perhaps I'm a bigot because

(while I of course acknowledge that the majority of religious people
are not extremists, and are probably just ordinary, decent people)

...I ultimately will still regard them as being accountable
for their own personal choice to be a member of an ideology;

an ideology that, in its service to a Divinity, should be irreproachable
...yet strangely is far from being such.

So I will take your accusation to heart.

Because I regard religion as an enormous, needless, hateful evil,
that would not exist but for its followers,

...and despite being opposed to racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism...

I am a bigot of the first water.

Deism is illogical though. If you are open to God existing, you should be open to the idea that he sent guidance and that the best creation are Guides. That he united their cause in form of religion, and the chosen ones become the uniting flag of the friends of God. If you believe in God, why would he not communicate to humanity?