Well exactly...

1. Muslims aren't a race so it's obviously not racist to criticize them

2. If, like I, you criticize the actual religion and what is written in it and so widely believed - Islam - as opposed to all "muslims" then I see that as a very valid criticism. Islam, like Christianity, is nonsense, and potentially dangerous nonsense.

EvF

Muslim's aren't specifically a race, but it is true that most Muslim's tend to be Middle Eastern. Calling Muslim's disgusting is not a valid criticism against Islam, but more a generalized attack on the people, hence my comment. I'm very critical of the religion of Islam, but I draw the line between criticizing the religion and criticizing the people, especially when such criticisms can be construed as a racist attack on the Middle Eastern people themselves.

It is not Muslims that I hate, it is what they believe in.

The Qu'ran and hadiths are even bigger crocks of shit than the Bible, which at least has conflicting messages up the wazoo, and far, far more violent than peaceful (count the stories of Muhammad doing whatever he wanted/committing violence to the play nice and be peaceful).

Their beliefs are repressive, base and prone to fundamentalism, more so than Christianity by nature of coherency and consistent violence (echoed in the Hadiths) advocated against both Muslim and non-Muslims.

(July 7, 2010 at 10:12 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Muslim's aren't specifically a race, but it is true that most Muslim's tend to be Middle Eastern. Calling Muslim's disgusting is not a valid criticism against Islam, but more a generalized attack on the people, hence my comment. I'm very critical of the religion of Islam, but I draw the line between criticizing the religion and criticizing the people, especially when such criticisms can be construed as a racist attack on the Middle Eastern people themselves.

Exactly my point, Eilonnwy. You put it much better than I did, though.

If you look at the Bible and the Qur'an side by side, neither is much better than the other. Both endorse slavery, genocide, violence, etc. It's just that the West has had the calming influence of secularism and post-Enlightenment values for several hundred years, whereas the East, despite being at the forefront of progress a few thousand years ago, is now where we were, ideologically, in about the 12th century. They invented algebra, and now just blow themselves up, in order to get (4x+2) young virgins in paradise. My hypothesis: there is a correlation between the direction in which a culture writes, and its intellectual progress, as shown by this graph:

I'm submitting it for peer review on these forums. I'm quietly confident that it'll mark a great advance in anthropology.

(July 7, 2010 at 6:34 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 1. Muslims aren't a race so it's obviously not racist to criticize them

So I sense we (not meaning you in particular EvF) are very, verry, very worried over here to be called a racist but it's OK when some other characteristic (for instance religion) is used to generalize, judge and condemn a group on. I simply think that's bigotry.

It's a gross overgeneralization and it's hateful and prejudiced to a group of people to label all religious people as "bad", since not all religious people are "bad", but it's still not racism.

It's a valid criticism to criticise religion itself since this at least has a chance of being demonstrated. Labelling all religious people as "bad" on the other hand, is ridiculous since it obviously can't be demonstrated and the fact it's also insulting as well as ridiculous makes it worse.

EvF

It's not racial discrimination but discrimination nontheless:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"

So what is important here, to avoid that specific label of "racism", or to avoid any discrimination?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are simply extensions of each other. The latter two borrowed heavily from the first of them. The violence associated with Islam is nothing new it is the old ploy of using religion to justify their acts of violence in the name of their god. Every religion at one time or another has done it, Christianity had its fair share of bloodletting several times throughout its own bloody history. In the end it's about world dominance.

Quote:the East, despite being at the forefront of progress a few thousand years ago, is now where we were, ideologically, in about the 12th century.

By choice, apparently. Its what happens when people spend too much time listening to priests of any sort.

This whole 'bigotry or not bigotry' tangent is pointless. When someone says "Muslims disgust me"... what they mean is that Islam disgusts them. The religion and those who follow it blindly are deemed 'disgusting'. It is not racism by any stretch. It is the religion and those who commit stupidity in its name that are being maligned and discriminated against. Is it generalizing? Yes... but in this case, it is a justifiable generalization. Islam = Bad. Christianity = Bad. We all preach those feelings.

One problem is that some of ya'll tend to take things too literally when, if you'd think about it for a second, you'd know what the other person is really saying. Casual speech shouldn't be taken so literally. Actual meaning is meant to be inferred when someone is speaking casually; e.g. 'I hate Muslims' doesn't mean that I hate every single individual Muslim in the world. It means that I hate the Muslim religion and those who commit stupidity in its name.