A Simple Rule

[abaris]

@Deist Paladin

http://atheistforums.org/thread-29803-pa...ight=islam

Page 2, see posts #12 and #15.

How about this, any muslim fanatics in the europe/US can be deported while their kids can stay with foster parents. This way the primary mode of indoctrination has been eliminated.

Actually, that's a pretty good response. An old fashioned "isolate and containment" policy is the sane response. Keep the Muslims in their own land. Isolate them economically with sanctions. Periodically bomb the crap out of any growing military instillations that threatens us. Stop Muslim immigration. That's a good start.

nuff said about noone suggesting it here.

And how often do I have to repeat that I don't mean Harris, but certain people on this board and the general public. Especially the populistic right wingers.

[Minimalist]

Citing 'thereligionofpeace.com' on Islam is like citing Fox News on the president.

Or answers in Genesis on evolution.

Do you expect to find criticism of it on Isuckedallahscock.com?

[DeistPaladin]

nuff said about noone suggesting it here.

I did say I didn't know anyone who was suggesting that.

mralstoner is a complete nutcase. I've had run ins with his posts before. Based on everything I've seen him post, I can safely say he's a fucktard. Condemnation enough?

The other guy I don't know. Taking children away from parents is really extreme, I agree, and should only be done if they are being mentally abused. That said, the line between sincerely held religious beliefs and mental/physical abuse is a finer line than you might think, especially since he did say "radical" Islam.

And how often do I have to repeat that I don't mean Harris, but certain people on this board and the general public. Especially the populistic right wingers.

I can't and won't be held to account for what some fucktard somewhere posted. If we're talking about a reputable leader with a media presence and a substantial following, that's one thing (it doesn't have to be Harris, it could be Hitchens, Dennet or (Nature's God help me) Dawkins.

Actually, if it's not about evolution, let me say right now that I probably disagree with and/or am aghast by what Dawkins has to say about anything.

[Mister Agenda]

Or answers in Genesis on evolution.

Do you expect to find criticism of it on Isuckedallahscock.com?

In your mind, those are the only two choices, eh? If a conservative or a creationist argued like you are here, you'd spot the cheapness of the source in a heartbeat. Your standards shouldn't vary depending on the topic. Maybe you ask yourself why you have to vary them to support your position.

[robvalue]

I think there may have been some sort of hideous misunderstanding, as I couldn't understand certain comments made about what I had said recently in this thread. So i thought it may help to reflect on it.

When I first posted, I had only read the opening post by DP and when I wrote that I agree with most of this, I meant I agree with what he said. I hadn't read through what everyone else had written first. So I don't know if it was assumed I was advocating something horrible someone else had written.

All I was describing was my evaluation of what moderates say, that's all, and what I would ideally like to happen. I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything.

I still haven't read the rest of the thread, or what was posted since I last made a post here as this whole thing threw me badly and I don't want it to affect me further. But I thought there has probably been a misunderstanding, and this might be why.

If people still think I'm terrible for even having the opinion that all moderates are hypocrites and validate the fundamentalists, then that's up to them.

I realise this all probably sounds ridiculous and I'm throwing some sort of self pity party. That's not the intention, I just wanted to try and sort things out without having to wade through what else might have been said. It's totallly my problem, not anyone elses, that I sometimes take things to heart too much which is why I haven't read any more comments before posting this. I'm taking a break from the forums for a while, as I've been too obsessed lately. I want to thanks everyone though, I've felt part of a great community and felt very welcomed. I'll probably be back after a while.

[Alex K]

Take your time to relax a bit, but you come back, you hear! You save me a lot of typing because you often make great points and I only have to kudo
Don't get too obsessed by one thread though.

[DeistPaladin]

I realise this all probably sounds ridiculous and I'm throwing some sort of self pity party. That's not the intention, I just wanted to try and sort things out without having to wade through what else might have been said. It's totallly my problem, not anyone elses, that I sometimes take things to heart too much which is why I haven't read any more comments before posting this. I'm taking a break from the forums for a while, as I've been too obsessed lately. I want to thanks everyone though, I've felt part of a great community and felt very welcomed. I'll probably be back after a while.

I hope you come back soon. This particular issue is a really sensitive one among liberals and needlessly so in my opinion. A lot of emotion gets dumped into it, as evident from how you saw Affleck literally turn red in the face with rage before he tried to shout Harris down, proving Harris' point that liberals are unwilling to oppose or discuss Islamic theocracy.

To some on the left, to criticize Islam is the same as saying we should round them all up and kill them. To suggest there might be a relationship between Islamic violence and Islamic theology, or to even want to discuss the issue, earns you the label of "racist".

By the way, if a Muslim loses his faith and becomes an atheist, has he changed his "race"? Does that mean that atheism is also a "race"? I'm still fuzzy on the whole Islam-is-a-race thing. I do agree that "race" is an arbitrary, poorly defined concept anyway but I was under the impression that a "racist" was someone who hated people for their genetic heritage rather than what nutty ideas they decided to adopt.

Is the hysteria among some liberals based on slippery-slope thinking, that today we are criticizing Islam and tomorrow we'll be sending them off to concentration camps? Or is there some other reason why we're not allowed to have a discussion about Islamic teaching?

If it helps to reassure some liberals concerned about the prospect of violent persecution of Muslims, let me remind you that all religions die with the utterance of two magic words:

"PROVE IT!"

Thomas Paine once wrote in his conclusion to The Age of Reason, that where ideas are expressed and exchanged freely, Truth will finally and powerfully prevail.

[Mister Agenda]

If people still think I'm terrible for even having the opinion that all moderates are hypocrites and validate the fundamentalists, then that's up to them.

No worries. I think you're mistaken on this point, but far from terrible, especially given your body of work. You're all right by me.

---

I hope you come back soon. This particular issue is a really sensitive one among liberals and needlessly so in my opinion.

If they'd all agree with you, all that wouldn't be necessary, eh?

A lot of emotion gets dumped into it, as evident from how you saw Affleck literally turn red in the face with rage before he tried to shout Harris down, proving Harris' point that liberals are unwilling to oppose or discuss Islamic theocracy.

Because a single case proves a point about an entire demographic? And it would be a lot easier to discuss Islamic theocracy with people who can comprehend that it isn't a synonym for 'Islam'. All the fuss you complain about? It's almost entirely due to people like you refusing to make simple and obvious distinctions when talking about more than a fifth of the world's population.

To some on the left, to criticize Islam is the same as saying we should round them all up and kill them.

I'd love to see a citation with a quote of that.

To suggest there might be a relationship between Islamic violence and Islamic theology, or to even want to discuss the issue, earns you the label of "racist".

When is it ever framed as just a suggestion? You keep skipping the discussion and going straight to your conclusions like they're a fact and whine that the mean old liberals don't want to have a discussion unless they accept your conclusions in the first place. And it's not just you. There's a whole demographic of Christian conservatives and WTF atheists who agree that people who say 'Islamic extremism' instead of 'Islam' are persecuting them. There's a reason you want to skip the part where we examine your assumptions.

By the way, if a Muslim loses his faith and becomes an atheist, has he changed his "race"?

Nope.

Does that mean that atheism is also a "race"?

Nope.

I'm still fuzzy on the whole Islam-is-a-race thing.

Care to cite a quote of this 'Islam is a race' thing? Just because many people hate Muslims because their racists doesn't make Islam a race. I bet if you were a little less defensive, you could grasp the difference.

I do agree that "race" is an arbitrary, poorly defined concept anyway but I was under the impression that a "racist" was someone who hated people for their genetic heritage rather than what nutty ideas they decided to adopt.

Or their national origin. Would it be beyond your understanding to see how someone who expresses contempt for Mexicans might be racist?

Is the hysteria among some liberals based on slippery-slope thinking, that today we are criticizing Islam and tomorrow we'll be sending them off to concentration camps?

The thinking is that since you refuse to distinguish between Muslims who are (for example) good American citizens and the Taliban, that your indiscriminate condemnations provide cover and justification for discriminating against innocent people here and abroad; and in some cases violence against them. It's not a slippery slope, it's current events.

Or is there some other reason why we're not allowed to have a discussion about Islamic teaching?

For starters, that's a lie. What you're not allowed to do is smear people without being called on it. The idea that Islamic teaching is at the root of the troubles endemic to undeveloped or single-resource countries and our problems with them rather than their political history and our heavy-handed interventions is motivated by a desire to make it about something that absolves the West of any responsibility for a situation which it has actively and purposely developed. If we make it about a book, if we make it about essence, the only way to address the problem is to make 1.6 billion people stop believing that book, and that's something we can't do. It's like using China as an excuse to not do anything about global warming, rather than correct our own policies that are contributing to the problem, we complain that it's really out of our hands until the 'other' changes their ways.

If it helps to reassure some liberals concerned about the prospect of violent persecution of Muslims, let me remind you that all religions die with the utterance of two magic words:

"PROVE IT!"

Can you give an example of a religion that died because of that? From what I've read of history, the most common cause of death for a religion has been a new religion taking its place.

Thomas Paine once wrote in his conclusion to The Age of Reason, that where ideas are expressed and exchanged freely, Truth will finally and powerfully prevail.

Apparently you're adding an addendum: if the mean old liberals will stop criticizing what we say and just agree that we're right!

[Thumpalumpacus]

The new rule makes it clear that while moderates may be nice people, they don't represent what their religion really teaches.

Seems to me that we'd be better off encouraging more believers to be moderates, rather than pushing them into the arms of the extremists by labeling them as not true Xers.

---

To suggest there might be a relationship between Islamic violence and Islamic theology, or to even want to discuss the issue, earns you the label of "racist".

The issue there is linguistic; people are using "racist" when they mean "bigot".

And clearly some of the folks discussing the relationship between Islamic violence and Muslim theology are bigots.

[DeistPaladin]

Seems to me that we'd be better off encouraging more believers to be moderates, rather than pushing them into the arms of the extremists by labeling them as not true Xers.

This is beside the point, as my OP asked whether or not it's true rather than how we should be treating moderates. Perhaps you agree but think it's best to keep quiet about that lest we drive more into the fundy camp? Or perhaps you disagree in which case please elaborate. Either way, beside the point.

Ignoring that, are you suggesting that discussing how "moderates" water down their religion with foreign elements like modernity and personal conscience (frankly, this seems to be doing nothing more than pointing out the definition of a moderate) actually drives them to become fundamentalists?

Do you know of even anecdotal accounts of this happening? Statistical evidence and peer reviewed studies would be ideal.

The issue there is linguistic; people are using "racist" when they mean "bigot".

No, actually there are some on the left who seriously suggest that criticism of Islam is rooted in racism.





Ironically, stating that "Islam is associated with a certain race" or that "you can't distinguish Islam from a certain race or culture" as this video insists is itself racist. I eventually unsubscribed to this channel for that reason and other pig-headed ignorant assertions these guys made about Islam and atheism.

And clearly some of the folks discussing the relationship between Islamic violence and Muslim theology are bigots.

Just some of them or all?