"Islamophobia"

[TaraJo]

Islamophobia is a tricky thing. If you define it as an unreasonable fear of a group of people, yes, it's undoubtedly out there. You see it pop up every time you hear about some group of politicians specifically outlaw sharia law. You saw it when Faux News was pitching a fit over the Islamic community center a few blocks away from the 9/11 site. I've seen it when people treat others like garbage solely over their religion. There are some women at my school who, judging from the hijab they wear, are Muslim and they seem to be intelligent, rational, friendly people and, yet, I've seen them deal with real hatred for that simple scarf.

That being said, I still thing Islam is factually incorrect. I also realize that there's a lot of violence and hatred done in the name of Islam. Talking about those things isn't islamophobia. If anything, think that the thing we can do to help them more than anything is to talk about it. That violence and hatred stems from a lack of financial opportunity in the area and a lack of education. People with money have something to lose and therefore want to discourage violence. People with education tend to reject religion, too, and I think the area would benefit from that as well. Given those conditions, if Christianity were the dominant religion in a region that lacks money or education, Christianity would be a savage, brutal religious belief that spreads hate, too; look at the evolution of the religious right here in America if you want to see it starting to happen.

[Mystic]

Wrong. Here are the thoughts I'm coming up with. We reasoned our morals from analysis. Islam doesn't have justifications for its laws. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if any or all of Islamic morals are correct or not.

This doesn't seem to be true to me. For example, Islam teaches to respect parents. Although there is perhaps a detailed way to analyze why you should respect your parents (in general), I am not convinced, that emotional instinct/intuition doesn't justify our respect to our parents.

In fact, I would say the more you analyze it, the more it goes off tangent from the love we feel in moral acts.

This is why prefer fuzzy type art type morality personally. Your mathematical model of morals make work for you, but perhaps, it may cause you to be ignorant of other moral truths, because morality is not the nature you assume it is. It perhaps is not based on any universal principle that can be stated in language.

But, because of detailed reasoning, we do have of knowing that our morals are correct.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps the more we try to reason morals by analysis, the more far of we go from beauty and sacred nature of it, and end up with a very dry perception of it.

Perhaps we can come up with reasons to justify some morals we already believe in, but the moral perception of it that didn't rely on those justifications and analysis, was more praiseworthy reason to act, and stronger basis to those morals we believe in.

One of the many things you are not sure about.

Well you act sure, but it's true I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that I don't know that I know which seems like a paradox but such is my state of confusion.

Not always - and therefore, no reason why it should be.

I'm not sure they aren't. Is non emotional motivated act something that can be called "good". But even if it's not always, if majority of actions our morally driven, then why doesn't your logic still apply.

And the reason why they should not is...?

Perhaps it kills the beauty of morality, dries up it's ocean, to math

No, I'm basically saying that since their gut instinct was unjustified, they cannot know if their good was actually good or actually bad and therefore they have no position to dictate it to others.

This is what you are assuming. They cannot know if their good is good. But you haven't proven that.

Why would I prove that when I'm stating the opposite? I say that moral truths can be properly basically justified.

Your model made inferences though for every moral principle. That's not properly basic.

Something to be corrected, to be sure.

I dunno. If it's heading towards allowing 20 men marrying 20 women and then stating no one can know that is wrong or disgraceful, it seems rather like corruption of morality then it's perfection.

Yes it is. Try going through my argument again. Take a day or two. Reread it a few times. You'll get it eventually.

I know you feel that way. I will re-read a few times, but you to me are making unproven assertions based on non-sequitur reasoning.

Why do you assume that that choice of value would be outside the purview of morality? Your very choice of values can be immoral as well.

I don't assume that, and I don't see the relevance.

If you appreciate it, then why do you need to be forced?

Because we aren't all "strong" enough to do what is better for ourselves.

You really think you can forcefully educate someone who isn't willing to learn? You are providing an excellent example to the contrary.

There is a will, but the force of education, makes them not have to struggle against laziness, want of playing, wasting time etc..

Did you appreciate it when you were being forced into it?

Yes I did, I understood it was for my good, but it's something else, if I would act according to my own good without force.

Relevance?

Well the well being of people in this case can be more important and valuable then simply giving them a moral choice.

Except, if it is for our benefit, then force should not be necessary.

Well perhaps if we were all Angels that would do the best things in our interest all the time.

Except, they would not definitely want to do anything. You guys have some sot of crystal glass which tells you that they would "definitely want their past selves to wear Hijaab in future" and therefore we are justified in forcing them to do so today?

I don't. I personally am confused about everything right now, from morals to my perception of myself to whether I know there is an eternal being or not.

I however refuse to simply accept western culture and moral sense, because I am confused right now, and think I would be doing the same error when I looked for guidance in Quran and Sunnah.

I also don't feel like I have to be able to rationally explain all my morals, to be allowed to be able to express moral opinion.

My, my. How your imagination runs on? Do you really have so low an opinion of human beings that we just have to allow something to happen for it to become norm?

It's not it must happen or most probably will happen, it's just that it's possible.

It won't. School property, school rules.

They can do it outside of high school, what I mean popular in high school, is that it can be a fun thing that school cullture agrees upon doing.

High school culture is all about being fun and cool, right, very little with being holy and moral.

As you said, the society has an easy way of respecting its own will. They should "guard their gaze" or "avert their eyes" or "look away", if they do not want to look at naked people.

But it makes it very hard upon people. Even the strongest willed men might not be able to resist looking naked women walking in the street if becomes something that is normal.

Actually, it would make sense, if morality actually needed emotion.

But morality does need emotion.

So, it should not be applicable to those who do not appreciate it.

Yes and no. Perhaps a person would steal if there was no consequence by the law. And he wants to steal. But doesn't really know if at the time, he would actually do it.

Therefore, he is not guilty of decision. Sure the honor of not stealing is not really there if he wants to steal, but also the disgrace of the act, is not there, if he doesn't actually go through it.

So wanting would be bad, but not as bad as actually going through it.

You really need society to stop you from waking naked down the streets?

I don't know who I would've been if not the laws and culture I was brought up with. I have no idea.

Personally right now, I wouldn't. If I was Atheist growing up for example, and my group of friends thought it would be cool to walk naked in the streets, and peer pressured me, and the was no rules against it in society, I don't know if I would or would not.

Also, social culture reflects a lot on what is allowed and not allowed. And it has a lot of basis in religion.

Take away religion (sacred basis to morals) and take away consequence....and I don't know what type of society ends up forming in the future.

Believers in God hold morals to be highly sacred, because they believe morality exists in a ultimate exalted form that is worthy to be obeyed.

So what today we feel a lot of shame because of culture of religious people, tommorrow, it can be a lot less.

To be honest, there is a part of what seems a lustful evil part of me that wants people to walk naked in the street and even it for to become a norm.

I don't know we have a lot of inner demons that seem cool to adopt. We are treading dangerous ground these days.

There is part of me that lusts the idea of being in 5 on 5 poly, and I don't know if becomes allowed, and something society doesn't look down upon, if I would do it.

I don't know there is a rebellious part of me that just wants to let go and act wild and just ignore morals and not really care about honour.

[downbeatplumb]

If muslims are so decent, why do the women all have to be covered from head to foot so they wont drive the men to rape them?
Do muslim men have no self control?

[TaraJo]

If muslims are so decent, why do the women all have to be covered from head to foot so they wont drive the men to rape them?
Do muslim men have no self control?

Fundamentalist versions of every religion do crazy things like that. The only problem is that in the Midde East, the theocratic governments have pretty much taken over which pushes things even further towards more and more fundamentalism. Christianity has done some crazy as hell stuff, too, when the church was the government.

[downbeatplumb]

If muslims are so decent, why do the women all have to be covered from head to foot so they wont drive the men to rape them?
Do muslim men have no self control?

Fundamentalist versions of every religion do crazy things like that. The only problem is that in the Midde East, the theocratic governments have pretty much taken over which pushes things even further towards more and more fundamentalism. Christianity has done some crazy as hell stuff, too, when the church was the government.

It shows very little faith in the morality of the men though don't you think?

[genkaus]

This doesn't seem to be true to me. For example, Islam teaches to respect parents. Although there is perhaps a detailed way to analyze why you should respect your parents (in general), I am not convinced, that emotional instinct/intuition doesn't justify our respect to our parents.

If you do analyze it, it would turn out that some parents, such as those who are abusive, should not be loved or respected - going against your emotional instinct.

In fact, I would say the more you analyze it, the more it goes off tangent from the love we feel in moral acts.

This is why prefer fuzzy type art type morality personally. Your mathematical model of morals make work for you, but perhaps, it may cause you to be ignorant of other moral truths, because morality is not the nature you assume it is. It perhaps is not based on any universal principle that can be stated in language.

The "mathematical" model (mathematical, really? where did I use any math?) is how you would know moral truths. Nothing can be stated as a moral truth without its use.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps the more we try to reason morals by analysis, the more far of we go from beauty and sacred nature of it, and end up with a very dry perception of it.

Perhaps we can come up with reasons to justify some morals we already believe in, but the moral perception of it that didn't rely on those justifications and analysis, was more praiseworthy reason to act, and stronger basis to those morals we believe in..

Perhaps? Your conjectures are meaningless. Use of reasoned argument means you don't use 'perhaps'.

As for the point itself - you are again wrong. Using reason to analyze our intuitions would help us remove incorrect or damaging morals from our over all morality. It would take much more effort than following our instincts blindly, thereby making the resulting morals more praiseworthy, beautiful and with a much stronger basis.

Well you act sure, but it's true I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that I don't know that I know which seems like a paradox but such is my state of confusion.

That's because knowledge is the result of use of reason - something you seem unfamiliar with.

I'm not sure they aren't. Is non emotional motivated act something that can be called "good".

If it is good, then yes, it should be.

But even if it's not always, if majority of actions our morally driven, then why doesn't your logic still apply.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Perhaps it kills the beauty of morality, dries up it's ocean, to math

as it happens, it doesn't do any of that.

This is what you are assuming. They cannot know if their good is good. But you haven't proven that.

Yes I have. Knowledge requires justification. Without justification they cannot know if their good is good.

Your model made inferences though for every moral principle. That's not properly basic.

Answer me this. In the polygamy thread, you asked me to provide my basis for objective morality and I did. In form of a detailed essay I wrote some time ago. Since then, you haven't shown your face in that thread and in all others keep acting as if I haven't given any justification for my arguments.

Do you expect me to repeat that argument in every thread? If your really want to know about the "properly" basic principles for morality - go and read that argument.

I dunno. If it's heading towards allowing 20 men marrying 20 women and then stating no one can know that is wrong or disgraceful, it seems rather like corruption of morality then it's perfection.

Are you high? It is the current state that "no one can know that if wrong or disgraceful". The final destination would be - "allowing 20 men marrying 20 women - knowing whether its wrong or disgraceful, but also knowing that forcefully disallowing that would be even more wrong and disgraceful".

I know you feel that way. I will re-read a few times, but you to me are making unproven assertions based on non-sequitur reasoning.

I mean, go an read my argument for objective morality in the polygamy thread.

I don't assume that, and I don't see the relevance.

You don't see the relevance of how having a value system contradictory to moral principle would make morality impracticable?

Because we aren't all "strong" enough to do what is better for ourselves.

What does strength have to do with it?

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='354889' dateline='1351440066']There is a will, but the force of education, makes them not have to struggle against laziness, want of playing, wasting time etc.. [quote]

Contradiction. If there is a will, then they are not being forced - they are simply being helped to carry their own will out.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='354889' dateline='1351440066']Yes I did, I understood it was for my good, but it's something else, if I would act according to my own good without force.

Why wouldn't you want your own good?

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='354889' dateline='1351440066']Well the well being of people in this case can be more important and valuable then simply giving them a moral choice.

Why would that be the case?

Well perhaps if we were all Angels that would do the best things in our interest all the time.

Really? I thought angels weren't supposed to be selfish.

I don't. I personally am confused about everything right now, from morals to my perception of myself to whether I know there is an eternal being or not.

I however refuse to simply accept western culture and moral sense, because I am confused right now, and think I would be doing the same error when I looked for guidance in Quran and Sunnah.

I also don't feel like I have to be able to rationally explain all my morals, to be allowed to be able to express moral opinion.

But you are expressing moral opinions without being able to rationally explain them. And what you fail to understand is that the question here is not regarding accepting western culture or moral sense, but about the freedom of accepting or rejecting it. The same way others should have the freedom of accepting or rejecting your culture and your moral sense.

It's not it must happen or most probably will happen, it's just that it's possible.

So it's not even appeal to consequences - it's an appeal to possible consequences.

They can do it outside of high school, what I mean popular in high school, is that it can be a fun thing that school cullture agrees upon doing.

High school culture is all about being fun and cool, right, very little with being holy and moral.

And why do you think it would be fun or cool?

But it makes it very hard upon people. Even the strongest willed men might not be able to resist looking naked women walking in the street if becomes something that is normal.

And why should a failure to live up to their own standards create any obligation upon the woman?

But morality does need emotion.

Does it? Why? You don't think any created artificial intelligence could be moral?

Yes and no. Perhaps a person would steal if there was no consequence by the law. And he wants to steal. But doesn't really know if at the time, he would actually do it.

Therefore, he is not guilty of decision. Sure the honor of not stealing is not really there if he wants to steal, but also the disgrace of the act, is not there, if he doesn't actually go through it.

So wanting would be bad, but not as bad as actually going through it.

This doesn't address my argument at all. The person's own idea of honor and disgrace are up to him and should have no bearing on what laws are enacted upon the society.

I don't know who I would've been if not the laws and culture I was brought up with. I have no idea.

Personally right now, I wouldn't. If I was Atheist growing up for example, and my group of friends thought it would be cool to walk naked in the streets, and peer pressured me, and the was no rules against it in society, I don't know if I would or would not.

Also, social culture reflects a lot on what is allowed and not allowed. And it has a lot of basis in religion.

Take away religion (sacred basis to morals) and take away consequence....and I don't know what type of society ends up forming in the future.

Believers in God hold morals to be highly sacred, because they believe morality exists in a ultimate exalted form that is worthy to be obeyed.

So what today we feel a lot of shame because of culture of religious people, tommorrow, it can be a lot less.

To be honest, there is a part of what seems a lustful evil part of me that wants people to walk naked in the street and even it for to become a norm.

I don't know we have a lot of inner demons that seem cool to adopt. We are treading dangerous ground these days.

There is part of me that lusts the idea of being in 5 on 5 poly, and I don't know if becomes allowed, and something society doesn't look down upon, if I would do it.

I don't know there is a rebellious part of me that just wants to let go and act wild and just ignore morals and not really care about honour.

Still missing the point, aren't you? Simply making something legal doesn't mean it becomes a norm or something the society doesn't look down upon. But the same way you insist on following your own culture and morality, others should be allowed to as well.

[CapnAwesome]

I love the term Islamophobia. Fear of Islam. Well okay.

[Something completely different]

just attach together some other greek words.

misia being the greek word for hatred, one may create Islamomisia - hatred of islam

kritikos - able do disent - Islamokritikos - someone able to desent from islam

krites - critical - Islamokrite - someone who critizises islam.

katakrima - condeming - Islamokatakrima - someone who condems Islam


And now I expect someone who actualy enjoyed a classical education in greek, to hand my ass over to me.
I only have a greek dictonary.

[TaraJo]

Fundamentalist versions of every religion do crazy things like that. The only problem is that in the Midde East, the theocratic governments have pretty much taken over which pushes things even further towards more and more fundamentalism. Christianity has done some crazy as hell stuff, too, when the church was the government.

It shows very little faith in the morality of the men though don't you think?

Not really. More than anything, I think it's a sociological thing more than religious. Poverty, lack of education and violence all seem to come together in a package deal, whether it's religious or secular. A lot of the hate in the name of religion is just uneducated people trying to find a scapegoat for their problems. I think, if the regular people of the middle east had the opportunity for a good education and they had money to take care of their every day lives, we'd see quite a bit of change in Islam. We want to say religion shapes society, but I see it happening the other way around: differences from one society to the next change religious beliefs. Look here in the US: most of our nation are Bible believing Christians, but they're more than willing to ignore the parts of the Bible that say to kill people for wearing clothes made of a mixed fabric or animal sacrifices.

[Annik]

Not really. More than anything, I think it's a sociological thing more than religious. Poverty, lack of education and violence all seem to come together in a package deal, whether it's religious or secular. A lot of the hate in the name of religion is just uneducated people trying to find a scapegoat for their problems. I think, if the regular people of the middle east had the opportunity for a good education and they had money to take care of their every day lives, we'd see quite a bit of change in Islam. We want to say religion shapes society, but I see it happening the other way around: differences from one society to the next change religious beliefs. Look here in the US: most of our nation are Bible believing Christians, but they're more than willing to ignore the parts of the Bible that say to kill people for wearing clothes made of a mixed fabric or animal sacrifices.

More true than most realize.


Want a better country/religious organization? Educate your poor.