What if other ideas were defended the same way?
November 11, 2014 at 9:19 am
(This post was last modified: November 11, 2014 at 9:19 am by DeistPaladin.)
I had this thought last night as my wife and I were discussing religion. Everyone, I'm sure is familiar with the recent meltdown of Ben Affleck on the Bill Maher show, Realtime. There's been a lot of activity since among liberals defending Muslims against what they see as bigoted attacks against them personally. Such attacks are not what Harris, Maher or others intended. They're trying to discuss the religion, not the people.
This knee-jerk charge of "racism" (Islam is now a race apparently) effectively shut down the conversation about the ideas Islam presents and prevent any serious discussion on whether there could be a link between religion and religious violence.
To the "coexist advocate" like Ben Affleck (I'll call them), religion is to be absolved from any responsibility for religious violence, for fear that we will paint moderates and ordinary adherents with the same brush we use to depict hard liners and terrorists. They insist we always look for a political, social or personal motive whenever religious violence rears its ugly head.
Oddly enough, this is the same strategy we see with the NRA. Mass shootings don't happen because of the plentiful accessibility of guns in the US. There are always other causes of the tragedy, from violence in video games to how we treat mental illness in this country. Any discussions of the availability of guns is shut down.
To the free thinker, this kind of creation of proverbial sacred cows and forbidden topics of discussion is intellectually dishonest. We don't treat non-religious ideas this way. When an idea seems to lead to violence, even by a mere 1% of its advocates, we ought to examine whether there was a link between the idea and the behavior of its adherents.
So with this long-winded intro having set the stage, imagine if we did treat other political ideas the way we treat Islam. Apologies in advance to Godwin; this satire is not intended to suggest anyone is a Nazi but to make a point on how we discuss ideas.
This knee-jerk charge of "racism" (Islam is now a race apparently) effectively shut down the conversation about the ideas Islam presents and prevent any serious discussion on whether there could be a link between religion and religious violence.
To the "coexist advocate" like Ben Affleck (I'll call them), religion is to be absolved from any responsibility for religious violence, for fear that we will paint moderates and ordinary adherents with the same brush we use to depict hard liners and terrorists. They insist we always look for a political, social or personal motive whenever religious violence rears its ugly head.
Oddly enough, this is the same strategy we see with the NRA. Mass shootings don't happen because of the plentiful accessibility of guns in the US. There are always other causes of the tragedy, from violence in video games to how we treat mental illness in this country. Any discussions of the availability of guns is shut down.
To the free thinker, this kind of creation of proverbial sacred cows and forbidden topics of discussion is intellectually dishonest. We don't treat non-religious ideas this way. When an idea seems to lead to violence, even by a mere 1% of its advocates, we ought to examine whether there was a link between the idea and the behavior of its adherents.
So with this long-winded intro having set the stage, imagine if we did treat other political ideas the way we treat Islam. Apologies in advance to Godwin; this satire is not intended to suggest anyone is a Nazi but to make a point on how we discuss ideas.
Hypothetical Character Ken Baffleck Wrote:"Sure WWII was a terrible, destructive war and the holocaust a horror against humanity. Nobody denies this. But why do we paint all Nazis with a broad brush or assume that Nazism was the cause?
"Just because a few bad apples who ran the regime started a war with the world or ran concentration camps where so many were slaughtered, that doesn't mean we should agree with the racists or bigots who say the whole ideology of Nazism should be condemned with a broad brush. These were just bad people who happened to be Nazis, right?
"Let's not forget about all the moderates, the civilians who were unaware of the atrocities or the truth about the war. Not all German civilians, even those who voted for the "bad apple" Hitler, knew what the plan was. Some of them were deceived by the propaganda. And when you criticize an idea, it means you're a racist who is attacking and condemning all the people that hold it personally. There's just no way to separate the two ... is not ... is not ... is not.
"There's a more nuanced view. When we think of what caused the holocaust, we need to consider all possible motives, political, economic or personal and not just blame the ideology that drove the hatred that led to the atrocity.
"You can't blame an idea for what the adherents of the idea do. That's racist and bigoted."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
