Religions are not equals

[Mister Agenda]

All theistic religions are equally wrong, but not equally bad. A few have a good record on non-violence (Jainism, Quakerism, Ahmadiyya and Ismaili Islam, and Universal Sufism come to mind). Wahabbism and Salafism in general in Islam, conservative fundamentalist evangelicism in Christianity, and whatever brand of Buddhism is okay with oppressing minorities in Myanmar come to mind as not so great.

[Crunchy]

. . . as I've noted before, Mormonism is ESPECIALLY FALSE.

I've not claimed that any religion is more false than the other so this attempt at sarcasm is off the mark. For sarcasm to work you have to be accurate about that which you are attempting to mock. A joke that is "funny because it's true" is not funny if it's not true.
It seems that we all agree that all religions share the same flaw in that they put faith ahead of reason. They are all false, but some are more violent/intolerant/sexist and so on and these differences have real world consequences.

It bothers me that every public figure who speaks about Islam being currently more troublesome is labelled a racist and bigot and their reasoned arguments are ignored or misrepresented. Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Richard Dawkins, Hitchens etc...  Tolerance of intolerance does not lead to more tolerance.

Compare this to the enlightenment when people like Voltaire, and Thomas Jefferson spoke out against Christianity. They were deemed blasphemers by their religious opponents, not racists and bigots by their own ideological peers. 

How can there be a new enlightenment directed at Islam when Liberals and atheists attack their own peers who are speaking out against Islam?

[Neo-Scholastic]

[FatAndFaithless]

Err...is that graphic implying that world religions are all in some way related to the same god?

[Mister Agenda]

How can there be a new enlightenment directed at Islam when the 'enlightened critics' treat it as a monolithic edifice and regard corrections on matters of fact or nuance 'attacks'?

And Voltaire and Jefferson were 'punching up' while we are in a situation in the West where our Muslim citizens are a vulnerable minority. 'Punching down' calls for more care and 'lifting up' is usually more classy.

[Regina]

It bothers me that every public figure who speaks about Islam being currently more troublesome is labelled a racist and bigot and their reasoned arguments are ignored or misrepresented. Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Richard Dawkins, Hitchens etc...  Tolerance of intolerance does not lead to more tolerance.

Compare this to the enlightenment when people like Voltaire, and Thomas Jefferson spoke out against Christianity. They were deemed blasphemers by their religious opponents, not racists and bigots by their own ideological peers. 

How can there be a new enlightenment directed at Islam when Liberals and atheists attack their own peers who are speaking out against Islam?

Although I don't want to act like "The Islam issue" is the only thing going on in the world right now, I think this is a massive contribution to why politics are so skewed and messy in contemporary times tbh. We've had this pathetic weak Left over the past 3 decades, who have completely abandoned their traditional liberal principles to defend multiculturalism and Islam from criticism, even from people who come from Muslim backgrounds. Even someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an "Islamophobe" or a "self-hater" for daring to speak out, and it really is such a patronising racism to tell these people (basically) that secularism and recognition of human rights are exclusively for white people.

It's dangerous as well, because when the Left won't be principled and defend human rights in the face of this Islamist far-Right regressive political movement, you pave the way for The Western Right to come in, and do it in their own way by scape-goating and vilifying everyone who practices Islam.

Donald Trump would not be POTUS right now if The Western Left had spent the last 3 decades combating Islamism, in a principled defense of individual human rights. It's because the Left have so spectacularly dropped the ball on this issue, betraying anyone (Muslim or non-Muslim) who is trampled over by Islamists, and allowing Islamism to fester into the phenomenon it has become today, that people like Trump have been able to exploit things to gain power.





I still think this is an amazing short talk by ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie (I actually quoted a segment of it for my signature on this forum). It's a good critique of The Western "pro-Islamist Left" and I think everyone should hear it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[FatAndFaithless]

That's a neat little poster. Reminds me of the "Shit happens" one that gives little funny summaries of religions and political ideologies. Lemme find it..

EDIT: Eh, not exactly the one I was looking for.. the one I remember was longer, but oh well shit happens.

[emjay]

Not surprisingly mine ends up as toss up between Secular Humanism and Buddhism, which pretty much sums me up... if Secular Humanist just means atheist ... ie I'd call myself an atheist with Buddhist influences, the latter sometimes more than others.

[Crunchy]

How can there be a new enlightenment directed at Islam when the 'enlightened critics' treat it as a monolithic edifice and regard corrections on matters of fact or nuance 'attacks'?

That's a strawman and a misrepresentation of their criticisms. They don't treat Islam as a monolithic edifice. It just makes it easier for you if the accuse them of this.

And Voltaire and Jefferson were 'punching up' while we are in a situation in the West where our Muslim citizens are a vulnerable minority. 'Punching down' calls for more care and 'lifting up' is usually more classy.

This once again attempts to protect Islam from criticism by tying such criticism to racism towards a minority. It's a dangerous mistake to conflate people and religion.
If we followed your line of reasoning, no one should criticize Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism because there are vulnerable minorities of each in Islamic nations. You really need to stop conflating people and religion and trying to grant religion the same protections we afford to people.
Sorry, but no matter how well intentioned this is flawed reasoning.


I get that you want to protect people, but what you are inadvertently doing is protecting the horrible ideas of religious belief systems from criticism if it's minorities who believe them.  
 Of course we should do all we can to protect minorities from violence or even just unfair treatment... But what you must understand is that this does not extend to giving their beliefs any special exemption from criticism just because they are minorities.