A Simple Rule

[DeistPaladin]

I confess two mistakes which I'd like to correct now.

First is my misunderstanding of the definition of the word "heritage". Based on the definition cited for me, it does appear to be so broad as to include ideas you were raised to believe ...or seemingly anything else associated with the human experience. Everything is a heritage. If I was raised by conservative GOP parents (I wasn't but hypothetically) then I have a conservative GOP heritage. I was raised by atheists but my grandparents were Christian so maybe I do have a "Christian heritage" even though I am by no means a Christian.

Second was I allowed myself to get distracted by a moving topic. I'm not accusing anyone of shifting goal posts because I don't think it was deliberate. Topic drift is a natural thing and I should have been more focused.

The original point, to which I had so passionately responded "NO! IT'S! NOT!" is the proposed analogy that just as it's unfair to hold a German responsible for what the Nazis did, so to it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for radical Islam. Do I have this right? I don't want to straw man anyone. Assuming it is, I'd like to return to that topic and break it down:

• Proposed analogy: Just as it is unfair to take a German to task for what the Nazis did, it is unfair to hold Islam responsible for the actions of radical Islam.
  
• Definition: Radical Islam is an ideology.
  
• Definition: Nazism is an ideology.
  
• Definition: "German" is a race and/or a nationality.
  
• Therefore: according to this analogy, Islam is a....
  

If you did not intend to say "Islam is a race" you, to be frank, used a sloppy analogy.

It doesn't seem to operate in the real world that often for something that 'must be'. Perhaps 'should be' would be more accurate.

I demand it so I'm using the word "must". Society may not comply for now but perhaps if more of us demand it as well, that may change.

But it's okay to discriminate against them or abuse them on other bases? I don't think you believe that. I just think you're not taking much care with what you post.

I do and we as a society do.

There's a reason why if someone talks to invisible, undetected beings, we treat that person as if they are crazy. If someone thinks feeding ice cream to a computer helps it run faster, that person is not going to have much chance of landing an I.T. job. If someone talks openly about their experience in a UFO abduction but can't generate any evidence that it happened, that person is unlikely to be elected to office. And there's nothing wrong with this.

I'm not saying Islam approaches this degree of insanity. I'm simply pointing out that people who believe crazy things are considered suspect in our society. We hold people to account for what they believe and why and consider carefully how this might either influence their actions (past, present and future) or affect their competence at certain jobs. This is at least how we operate in all areas of our discourse with the special exception we've arbitrarily created for socially accepted religious beliefs.

Consider:
One man with crazy beliefs is an asylum inmate.
Two men with crazy beliefs are a cult.
Three men with crazy beliefs are a respected religion.

You wouldn't say someone born in Germany to naturalized citizens (say, an Italian father and Russian mother) isn't German. Would you?

If it's anything like in America, we'd say "Italian/German" but this is getting off topic.

Yet a baby born to Muslim parents is almost as likely to wind up Muslim as a baby born to German parents is to wind up speaking German.

Key phrase being "wind up". Babies are all born atheists. They only become Muslim when artificially indoctrinated. But since we agree Islam is not a race, this is beside the point.

So only people with ideas of which you approve deserve protection?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Muslims, particularly in Western secular States, deserve protection from having their mosques vandalized, from being accosted (or worse) in the street for dressing differently, and from being treated as though they are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the law.

I agree.

They do not, of course, have protection from criticism. No group does.

I agree.

But you insist that everyone accept your characterization of Islam as accurate and fair a priori

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Here's what I am saying:
I have studied Christianity in, I think it's fair to say, great detail, at least as much as one who doesn't have a divinity degree. I've read the Bible, read many apologietics, studied the history from multiple perspectives and debated many apologists.

Now to focus on one topic for brevity, Christianity is anti-gay. Fred Phelps' "church" is not a perversion of Christian doctrine but an expression of it. Liberal-minded Christians can tie themselves into knots and perform mental gymnastics to reinterpret scripture as they like. Most often, they have (1) not read the scriptures (2) cherry picked them (3) come up with obtuse interpretations that border on making up their own religion.

Now most Christians I personally know are very nice people. They are not anti-gay bigots. Saying the religion is doesn't necessarily mean they personally are. Some of them do harbor anti-gay prejudice, in my view likely the result of the effect of indoctrination by their religion. I have little doubt that they would not participate in any anti-gay violence. And yet, the religion has an effect on society overall, fostering anti-gay bullying and violence and making gay rights a harder struggle than it might be with a more tolerant religion.

Hence, I am able to criticize a religion without calling for any violation of a Christian's rights.

Shifting to the topic of religious violence, I have no problem placing the blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of "witches" on Christianity. I can see a clear cause and effect between believing that the world is divided between stark good and evil (the former being the embodied in the god they serve) allowing for no neutrality, along with the dire consequences of their faith-based scheme of salvation, and the subsequent outbreaks of violence.

I don't know as much about Islam. I'd like to have an honest discussion about it.

Can we have such a discussion? It seems to be as similar to the NRA and gun violence in my country. Every time there is a mass shooting, you can almost count "3... 2... 1..." before the NRA swoops in to divert attention from the obvious problem of the plentiful and easy availability of guns in my country and from the obvious question "how did this crazy person get a gun?" Other excuses are offered. It must be video games. It must be violence in movies. I must be the music the shooter listened to. It must be anything but the readily available guns in America. Yet there is violence in movies, video games and music everywhere in the world.

That's why we'll never have sensible gun control in America anytime soon.

Similarly, Islam is never to blame for its outbreaks of sectarian violence. It's imperialism. It's oppression. It's lack of economic opportunities. It's anything but Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. You're a bigot if you even question whether it has anything to do with Islamic theology. Yet there is imperialism, oppression and poverty everywhere in the world.

Hope this clears up what I am saying.