(July 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Stereotypes are based on truth. Sorry. If it weren't true often enough to have become a stereotype, it would just be a non-sequitur. Like... 'People that use Firefox all have blonde hair'.

And what I mean by 'justifiable generalization' is this: If I say that Muslims are terrorists... I obviously do not mean that every single Muslim in the world is a terrorist. At least not when I'm speaking casually in every day speech. The word Terrorist (at this time in history) is synonymous with Islam in the minds of the masses. Tell me I'm wrong. When you hear the word Terrorist, who do you picture?

That doesn't mean that you think that they are ALL terrorists.

There is no such thing as justifiable generalization. That's utter bullshit. A lack of critical thinking. The easy way to score with the audience. If stereotypes are based on truth than all British have red hair, all germans steal dutch bikes, all Americans are ignorant bible fucking idiots and French smell like piss. It may suit you to understand your world but it won't help in solving anything. Nationalism, nazism, genocide are all built on adoration of stereotypes.

When I hear the word terrorist I see suicide bombers, Timothy McVeigh, pro-life fundamentalists killing abortion doctors, Japanese sects that spread poisonous gases in subway stations, Sendero Luminoso, german RAF, Al-Quaeda.... To equal this lot to all people with muslim faith may be easy on your mind, but it is not near half-way of truth. Your argument that most people see it this way is a fallacy known as argumentam ad populam.

Taking things too seriously. Seriously.

It's important to remember that every Christian and Muslim is a potential atheist. Most atheists I know were religious at one point, some of them devoutly so.

I adopt a similar attitude that Christians say they have about "sin". Love the religious, hate the religion. We all pra... excuse me, hope they each can be saved and come to reason.

I feel the same rage toward Islamo-Christianity that any other freethinker might. You can't help it when you take in all the misery, bigotry, bloodshed and stagnation that these religions have brought and continue to bring where they can. I do my best to try to contain these feelings and practice what we preach, being the voice of reason. I'm not always successful.

All that said, Islam is not a race. Islamophobia is a natural reaction to the dangers of Islam. It's like 14th century crusader Christians have entered our world with 21st century weapons. Worse, having the knowledge to construct a nuclear weapon doesn't inoculate your mind to looking forward to having 77 virgins in the afterlife. Speaking out against the dangers of the Islamo-Christian ideology isn't hate.

I also would like to see Islamo-Christianity crushed... but the same way Communism died, when all its proponents walked away from it peacefully. I long to see Jesus and Muhammad die a lonely death, not a violent one.

Perhaps Arabia, Persia and North Africa can one day enjoy a renaissance like Europe did after the Golden Age of Christianity (my sarcastic term for the Dark Ages).

(July 8, 2010 at 3:53 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Taking things too seriously. Seriously.

I was taking you seriously. Now you say I should not? Get serious.

*sighs*

My only intention was to point out that people were taking the words of others too seriously and too literally. In a thread that is sarcastically entitled "Islam is a peaceful religion", people are going to say bad things about Islam and Muslims in very general terms. It's called casual conversation.

If the news on TV says "23 people were killed today when a car bomb exploded in downtown Bagdad"... I might say, "Gah. I hate Muslims!" That does not make me a bigot, because I do not mean it that way. And I certainly do not mean it literally. If someone heard me say that and got all self-righteous about how wrong it is to make generalizations and comments that express a stereotype, I would accuse them of taking things too seriously. Seriously.

Sweeping generalizations, stereotyping, bigotry, hatred... etc... are wrong. I agree. My original point was that no one was necessarily guilty of those things in this thread and that people should stop taking things so literally. It's not a formal debate.

Consider this: Snap judgments are rarely correct. And, it can be argued, as wrong as generalizing.

I had hoped to encourage you guys to stop arguing about it, but I neglected to realize that arguing is exactly what you want to do. I really have nothing else to say on the topic.

I thank all. I was happy and hope. Furthermore, thank you Dotard to help me.

When the fatwa was pronounced against Salman Rushdie in 1989 there was a news report on British television asking British moderate Muslims what they thought. Not one of the British Muslims rejected the death order on Salman Rushdie. The reporter asked a number of Muslims what they would do if they met Rushdie. They said they would follow their religion and kill him. These were not 'radicalised' Muslims who'd been to Pakistan to train up for war, these were businessmen driving nice cars in London suburbs. I'm just saying.

---

And I just found this:-

On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston University in London about his conversion to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's execution. He replied, "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." ["Philadelphia Inquirer", February 24, 1989, p.5A, "Iran: West to blame Islam for forthcoming terrorism".]

That's Cat Stevens for pity's sake.

(July 7, 2010 at 2:41 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: So what is important here, to avoid that specific label of "racism", or to avoid any discrimination?

Any discrimination over a group is bad of course. But it's valid to criticise religion instead of 'all religious people'. To discriminate against all muslims is prejudice... to criticise Islam or any other religion for its lack of evidence and/or the harm it can cause is valid.

EvF

(July 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

(July 7, 2010 at 5:38 pm)Paul the Human Wrote:

Quote:And what I mean by 'justifiable generalization' is this: If I say that Muslims are terrorists... I obviously do not mean that every single Muslim in the world is a terrorist. At least not when I'm speaking casually in every day speech. The word Terrorist (at this time in history) is synonymous with Islam in the minds of the masses. Tell me I'm wrong. When you hear the word Terrorist, who do you picture?

Of course terrorism is almost universally synonymous with Islam. Probably most terrorists are Muslim. That doesn't say anything about how many Muslims are terrorists. Nor does my conception of Jamaicans as a bong-smoking, limboing people necessarily have any bearing upon reality.

Of course terrorism is almost universally synonymous with Islam. Probably most terrorists are Muslim. That doesn't say anything about how many Muslims are terrorists. Nor does my conception of Jamaicans as a bong-smoking, limboing people necessarily have any bearing upon reality.

The 'Real IRA' are bombing again.

Of course Americans didnt get the whole 'Irish as terrorists thing' or they wouldnt have funded then in the past.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

(July 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There is no such thing as justifiable generalization.

Are you saying that ALL generalizations are necessarily always unjustifiable? Quit generalizing! How ironically self-refuting. How hypocritical! What if someone pointed a gun to your head and said if you didn't generalize they'd shoot you? Would it not be then justified to generalize as an exception?

/End joke

/End irony

/End pedantic petty observation that points out the ironic self-refutation but in no way detracts the very valid general message of your post (and I gave Kudos for it cos you're right... generally ).

EvF