A Simple Rule

[Dystopia]

As Blackout rightfully pointed out, there are many political groups in Europe making a living out of (successfully) stereotyping muslims by blaming all the hardships on them and only if we got rid of them, we all would be better off. Again, that's the same tactics the Nazis used against the jews.

Fortunately they are not successful in every country, in some States the total amount of votes varies between 1-2% - Not only Muslims but immigrants generally - They have the same problem as communist parties - Communists blame the crisis on the rich and capitalism solely, when many other people are to blame, and nationalists blame it all on the immigrants and what they call modern trends (that they hate) - Like open borders (immigrants), gay marriage, abortion and drugs, they think erasing those aspects will make life better for everyone.

The attacks on Muslim communities are also true, for instance in France some Muslim families have found dead pig's heads in their relatives' graves - It's not that Islam doesn't deserve to be criticized, but doing this kind of bullshit ultimately equates doing what religious fundies would do (in this case, to a lesser degree) - And the fact is, even if the Muslim population is rising in France they have no significant control over the economy, media or means of production, so implying that they are an eminent threat is irrational and lacks any credible evidence, specially considering president Sarkozy has publicly made comments criticizing Muslim immigrants and many people don't like them.

[abaris]

Fortunately they are not successful in every country, in some States the total amount of votes varies between 1-2% - Not only Muslims but immigrants generally

Well, in my country, they stand a good chance of being in the next government. Right now, they're somewhere around 20 percent and they reached that many voters by using outright anti muslim propaganda, stereotyping and hate mongering.

Seems very likely that at age 50something I will have to take to the streets again, with all the other people having preserved at least some sense of human decency.

[Dystopia]

Fortunately they are not successful in every country, in some States the total amount of votes varies between 1-2% - Not only Muslims but immigrants generally

Well, in my country, they stand a good chance of being in the next government. Right now, they're somewhere around 20 percent and the reached that many voters by using outright anti muslim propaganda and hate mongering.

Seems very likely that at age 50something I will have to take to the streets again, with all the other people having preserved at least some sense of human decency.

Where? Italy? Germany? Finland? In Portugal and the UK they dont' seem to have that many votes.

[abaris]

Where? Italy? Germany? Finland? In Portugal and the UK they dont' seem to have that many votes.

Austria. After Hungary, we could be the second country being taken over by near fascists.

[Dystopia]

Where? Italy? Germany? Finland? In Portugal and the UK they dont' seem to have that many votes.

Austria. After Hungary, we could be the second country being taken over by near fascists.

The nationalists won in Hungary? I didn't know that. France is also a possibility, even with the absurd abstinence levels.

Let's just hope that the EU saves Austria's ass if that happens.

[abaris]

The nationalists won in Hungary? I didn't know that. France is also a possibility, even with the absurd abstinence levels.

Let's just hope that the EU saves Austria's ass if that happens.

You're not familiar with the Orban situation? That goes on for quite a few years now in Hungary, with Victor Orban cracking down on civil rights and the freedom of the press. A conservative asswipe being in league with Jobik, an outright Nazi party.

And they're in the EU too.

[DeistPaladin]

It's to give you an impression, how indiscriminately painting all people of a certain group with the same brush, regardless if they're a race a religion, cyclists or people wearing glasses, can ultimately lead to outbursts of violence against innocent people. So try my little experiment. Bigotry doesn't stop at race.

It does stop with ideology. To use your Nazi example, I'm not a bigot if I oppose Nazism. Is Islam that dangerous? I don't know. I'd like to have that frank discussion without it being preemptively silenced.

Why does Salmon Rushdie have to hide? Why does Ayaan Hirsi Ali need bodyguards? Why was Theo Van Gogh murdered? Why is it that if you criticize Islam, you're taking your life into your own hands?

Have you ever been to a majority Muslim country? I have. Indonesia is a supposedly "moderate" Muslim country. And you watch what you say when you're in public unless you have a death wish.

Atheists who live in small towns in America hide their non-belief as well but not out of fear of their lives but rather out of fear of social consequences. Perhaps they'd lose their livelihood or they might lose their friends. I've even heard of stories of harassment that atheists have received in small town America. I've not heard of any in fear of their lives.

Now 500 years ago, atheists would have been killed for being atheists. Christianity has managed to more-or-less peacefully integrate with civilization. Can Islam be reformed in a similar way? I don't know but I'd like to have that discussion without being silenced.

What I don't buy, which is what this thread is about, is the flippant "oh, that's just the radicals" excuse.

The radicals in any religion ARE the religion. Show me the radicals and I'll show you the religion in its purest form.

At least that's my conclusion so far. Maybe I'm wrong. Show me.

[abaris]

It does stop with ideology. To use your Nazi example, I'm not a bigot if I oppose Nazism. Is Islam that dangerous? I don't know. I'd like to have that frank discussion without it being preemptively silenced.

We can have the discussion about Islam any time and I probably be on your side. What we can't have is a discussion about muslims, since not all muslims are Islamists.

That's the only thing I'm trying to communicate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not advocating a course of action, but rather, pointing out a possible result of adopting this position of yours.

It's not so much a position as an observation.

By definition, the "radical" of a religion is one who hangs on every word of their scriptures, rejects science when it arrives at conclusions contrary and centers their life around their faith.

By definition, the "moderate" is one that does not do the above. Moderates will either cherry pick or broadly interpret their scriptures, accommodate science in their faith and live their life with religion as an accessory rather than a centerpiece.

My OP is asking if there's something I'm missing. There may be.

As for what we do about it, that's another matter. Perhaps we will want to keep that observation to ourselves. Perhaps it's politically expedient or might otherwise be beneficial to do so. That's why I said "beside the point." You make an important point, I won't belittle the discussion of that topic, but it's a different one.

But since you asked, I think extremists should be singled out for criticism, not moderates.

It depends.

If the moderates in question support the separation of church and state and otherwise don't force their religion on others, then yes, I'm inclined to leave them alone. If not, then no.

I would point out that we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming just because a religious person is a "moderate" that they won't caucus with the fundies or otherwise just go along with fundy leadership. All too often, they will.

No, that isn't what I said. Please don't twist my words.

Labeling them "not a true X" will likely drive some of them to the extreme, in my opinion.

It's not my intention to straw man anyone and forgive me if I have done so. That's why I asked you for clarification.

I will say that I'm extremely skeptical that any religious moderate will be pushed into fundamentalism because of a skeptic has said they're not being true religion X. To clarify, I'm skeptical of even an anecdotal case. I say this because it makes no logical sense, like a person knocked off the side of a mountain falling up to the peak instead of down into the valley below. Religious moderation exists as a forced concession to science and modernity. Putting the genie back into that bottle requires believing that science and modernity are false. It's possible, and this does happen on occasion, but not simply because some skeptic said "you're not a true X".

I'm expressing an opinion, as you should clearly have understood once you read the words "seems to me" . As such, asking for a citation appears to be deliberately obtuse on your part.

No, I've said I could be wrong. Do you have any examples of this happening at all? Or can you even map out a hypothetical case where it would make any sense to help me understand the pitfall I may be entering?

Well, the fact is that the vast majority of Muslims are non-white. Perhaps some folks are racist and Islamophobic; perhaps some on the left are confusing correlation and causation.

Point 1, I would agree.
Point 2, I'm open-minded to that possibility. I do my best to invite critique of my logic and correct it where I've made mistakes.

I'm pretty sure I used the word "some" in my point there. Let me go look -- yep, I sure did. There, you've got your answer.

No need for snark. I ask for clarification specifically because I want to avoid straw manning anyone.

I'm on my phone and unable to parse your reply efficiently, so forgive me as I say I will give you a full reply tomorrow.

In the meantime, my apologies for my snark. Your question read sarcastic on this side of the screen, because I choose my words with precision, being a writer. I took your question wrong, and answered (as I thought) in kind. The misunderstanding, and the apology, is mine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not so much a position as an observation.

By definition, the "radical" of a religion is one who hangs on every word of their scriptures, rejects science when it arrives at conclusions contrary and centers their life around their faith.

By definition, the "moderate" is one that does not do the above. Moderates will either cherry pick or broadly interpret their scriptures, accommodate science in their faith and live their life with religion as an accessory rather than a centerpiece.

My OP is asking if there's something I'm missing. There may be.

I think there are other forms of radical -- for instance, Sufi Islam, which is a mystic recasting of the Koran, or Calvinism; neither of which are grounded in literal readings of their holy books, but rather, rely upon interpretation; and neither of which espouse violence (any more).

It depends.

If the moderates in question support the separation of church and state and otherwise don't force their religion on others, then yes, I'm inclined to leave them alone. If not, then no.

I would point out that we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming just because a religious person is a "moderate" that they won't caucus with the fundies or otherwise just go along with fundy leadership. All too often, they will.

That's true. This is why I speak up against religion in general, myself.

It's not my intention to straw man anyone and forgive me if I have done so. That's why I asked you for clarification.

I will say that I'm extremely skeptical that any religious moderate will be pushed into fundamentalism because of a skeptic has said they're not being true religion X. To clarify, I'm skeptical of even an anecdotal case. I say this because it makes no logical sense, like a person knocked off the side of a mountain falling up to the peak instead of down into the valley below. Religious moderation exists as a forced concession to science and modernity. Putting the genie back into that bottle requires believing that science and modernity are false. It's possible, and this does happen on occasion, but not simply because some skeptic said "you're not a true X".

Religious extremism doesn't require the abjuration of science or modernity. It requires the compartmentalism of the mind. And my point is not that moderates will revert to extremism because a skeptic said "you're not a true X" -- my point is that skeptical criticism of their flouting scriptural mores can arm the fundamentalists with arguments that are then used to leverage moderates into a position of forced choice. In other words, moderates who don't adopt the literalist form of their religion may well be marginalized, if not targeted for attacks, a phenomenon we see in the Middle East.

As an aside, I don't think moderation of extremism in faith are conscious choices. I think they're much more a result of the circumstances of one's upbringing, including parents, local culture and prevailing views, wealth or its lack, as well as exposure to moderate or extremist preachments.

No, I've said I could be wrong. Do you have any examples of this happening at all? Or can you even map out a hypothetical case where it would make any sense to help me understand the pitfall I may be entering?

The hypothetical is mapped above. Actual cases? Not at my fingertips.

Do you have any actual cases of moderates abandoning the faith altogether because a skeptic chided that they weren't being true to it?

I'm pretty sure I used the word "some" in my point there. Let me go look -- yep, I sure did. There, you've got your answer.

No need for snark. I ask for clarification specifically because I want to avoid straw manning anyone.

I apologize again. For future reference, I use words very carefully, and if I write "some", I mean "some". Questioning that struck me as an insinuation that I thought of you or others as bigots, and I don't.