Criticizing Islam is racist?

[Thumpalumpacus]

however, my original point was that, when it gets down to brass tacks,
all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

(Especially if it is a religion that seeks to recruit,
and passes off its dogma as "truth" without being able to prove such).

They can't just squirm out from underneath responsibility for consenting to be part of such a group,
by saying that extremists "misinterpret",
as long as the extremists are able to defend their actions clearly using the holy writ of that particular religion,
because one follower's interpretation should be as legitimate as another's,
if you are going to allow for different "interpretations" at all.

While I agree that all interpretations may well be scholastically equal, that does not, repeat not, mean that moderates are responsible for the actions of extremists. If you truly believe that, then I think that you are in fact a bigot -- tarring the entire group for the actions of a few.

Blacks in America all labor under discrimination. Does the fact that non-criminal blacks understand better than whites why black gangbangers are in in prison from social circumstances mean that they are apologists for the crimes of their fellow blacks? No, of course it doesn't. And in the same vein, having been raised in the same culture, moderate Muslims can both understand the anger of the extremists at the same time they disavow the results of it.

Look at Westboro Baptist Church.

They assert that the entirety of Christianity, outside of themselves,
has it backwards when they profess "God is Love".

Westboro asserts that GOD HATES.

And I think most Atheists would have to agree with all the many verses that Fred Phelps & Co.
went to the trouble of mining from the Bible to justify their position.

(Which is why we're Atheists....we refuse to pull the wool over our own eyes and believe that God is Love when the Bible is filled with such appalling ideas).

However, that doesn't mean that all Christians share WBC's views, nor do all Christians approve of their actions. Many, if not the vast majority, don't ... because they place more stock in different verses.

I am Agnostic because I find religion repulsive, evil, and lacking in integrity and sanity.

I find those moderate, well-meaning Theists might be far more sane, kind, and well-intentioned,
than their extremist counterparts,

but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

I completely disagree. The freedom of conscience is the very essence of social freedom. Just because you think someone is deluded, their thinking should be outlawed?

What would happen if American Christians took the same attitude towards your atheism? What if they outlawed this very forum based on your own standards of "self-deluded" and "irresponsible"?

And to drive the point home further, asserting collective guilt is one hallmark of bigotry. Trying to make all Christians responsible for the actions of WBC not only flies in the face of facts (Christians who partake in counter-demonstrations of WBC actions), it flies in the face of the idea of being responsible for one's own actions. If an atheist commits a crime, should you carry the onus for it?

I would have no issue with protecting a person's right to have faith in God.

But protecting their "religion", their right to dogmatize, their right to attempt assimilation,
is, to my mind,
what led to many abuses of power over the centuries,
...the Kim Davis situation is the most recent to leap to mind...
and will continue to do so, in the future.

Right, now we're up against freedom of assembly. Here in America, people are able to gather as they please for whatever peaceable purposes they have in mind, given prudent limitations on gathering size affecting non-group-members. Part of faith in some faiths, notably the Christian faith here in America, puts a premium on sharing the experience, however vapid you and I both find it.

And therefore, I do not think it is bigotry to ultimately hold the "nice" religious people "accountable"
(albeit in a very thin, theoretical, inconsequential way)

And I think you're wrong, for reasons given above.

for for their free choice to belong to a group that IS guilty of atrocities,
....simply because they "meant well" or cherry-picked a pretty version for themselves.

Collective guilt again.

Or, at the very least,

It is no more unfair for me to ultimately hold moderate theists responsible for choosing to belong to a hateful religion,
when they are otherwise very decent, kind, reasonable individuals,
who, themselves, object to bigotry and hate;

than it is for you to hold me accountable for "bigotry" because I object to the lack of integrity of theists,
when I am otherwise a very decent, kind, and reasonable individual,
who, myself, objects to bigotry and hate.

Objecting to the lack of integrity of many theists is very different from wishing to enact collective punishment of all of them for the actions of a few.

I find your views here repugnant, and after this post I am convinced that your bigotry is not against Muslims, but all believers.

It is still a bigotry, insofar as you wish to blame all for the actions of a few, and take steps to enact collective punishment for individual crimes or misdeeds.

Abaris was absolutely right; you are unable to see the believer apart from the text.

[robvalue]

I don't blame moderates for what extremists do. I do however dislike the fact that they perpetuate oral myths about the magical truth of horrendous texts. It creates all sorts of problems. But ultimately, each person's actions are their own, and the judgement lies with them alone, in my opinion. Coercion can of be course be a mitigating factor.

I also have a problem with indoctrinating other vulnerable people with those same myths. Especially children.

However, I wouldn't take any action or treat anyone differently; I only try to promote reasonable discussion and clear thought. I'm not going to stand by and say these things are fine when they are not, but neither am I going to go round enforcing it and hassling people. If no one points these things out, then they will never change.

I'm anti-harm, whatever form that harm takes.

[MTL]

however, my original point was that, when it gets down to brass tacks,
all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

(Especially if it is a religion that seeks to recruit,
and passes off its dogma as "truth" without being able to prove such).

They can't just squirm out from underneath responsibility for consenting to be part of such a group,
by saying that extremists "misinterpret",
as long as the extremists are able to defend their actions clearly using the holy writ of that particular religion,
because one follower's interpretation should be as legitimate as another's,
if you are going to allow for different "interpretations" at all.

While I agree that all interpretations may well be scholastically equal, that does not, repeat not, mean that moderates are responsible for the actions of extremists.  If you truly believe that, then I think that you are in fact a bigot -- tarring the entire group for the actions of a few.

You know, I really thought I was crystal clear on this, but perhaps I wasn't...I will try again:

Blaming someone for the actions of another is not the same thing
as criticizing someone for tolerating the evils of another
and continuing to align themselves with that entity.

Example: 

I do not blame Bill Cosby's former co-stars for Cosby's alleged sexual assaults.

Of course I don't.

But I am disgusted that they wink at, or dodge the issue.

MTL Wrote:

Or, at the very least,

It is no more unfair for me to ultimately hold moderate theists responsible for choosing to belong to a hateful religion,
when they are otherwise very decent, kind, reasonable individuals,
who, themselves, object to bigotry and hate;

than it is for you to hold me accountable for "bigotry" because I object to the lack of integrity of theists,
when I am otherwise a very decent, kind, and reasonable individual,
who, myself, objects to bigotry and hate.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

Objecting to the lack of integrity of many theists is very different from wishing to enact collective punishment of all of them for the actions of a few.

I find your views here repugnant, and after this post I am convinced that your bigotry is not against Muslims, but all believers.

It is still a bigotry, insofar as you wish to blame all for the actions of a few, and take steps to enact collective punishment for individual crimes or misdeeds.

Abaris was absolutely right; you are unable to see the believer apart from the text.

I find your choice of words a bit reckless:

you wish to blame all for the actions of a few, and take steps to enact collective punishment for individual crimes or misdeeds.

" Take steps to enact collective punishment" ??!!!

Wow.  Please quote me where I said anything like that.

Again,
just because I insist that theists not dodge taking responsibility
for their choice to align themselves with an evil religion,
is not the same thing as saying I "blame them for the actions of others";

And AT NO POINT did I make ANY mention of "punishment".

I simply say they shouldn't stick their head in the sand.

If, and only if, they initiate the conversation with me,
will I confront them with that.


As far as my "bigotry" being against all Believers,
I think perhaps you should read back on some of my posts.

I specifically said that I have no issue with someone having faith in God.

My wish is that all Theists could see that it is possible for them to retain their belief in God
without applying dogma to it.

Imagine how different the world would be if tomorrow we woke up and every Theist in the world had realized they could jettison their dogma and be Deists.

Is that realistic?  Of course not.

But you talked about "defanging" religion...that is my approach to de-fanging:
point out, passively, when the opportunity presents itself,
that it is possible to have faith in God, without clapping dogma onto it.


But, like you, I deal with Theists "in the coin tendered".

I do not go around trying to disabuse them of their dogma,
and I can be friends with them if they are decent, rational people.

But if the conversation was ever initiated, on their part,
about our different philosophies,
I would not shrink, if prompted, from illustrating that I don't see how they can continue to align themselves with a religion that goes against their own conscience.

if that ends the friendship, so be it.

Another user on this forum, with whom I am friends, is a vegan.

I am not....but I am seriously considering it.

He would certainly never initiate a debate with me on the issue of my hypocrisy:
how I profess to love animals, but still consume products that are not vegan.

And, truth be told, he doesn't have to.

My conscience already pricks me on the point of my own hypocrisy.

But I have two points, here:

1.  When confronted with my own hypocrisy,
I am, at the very least, not going to dodge responsibility for that;
(and the outcome will doubtless be that I will eventually switch to a vegan lifestyle
if I am going to be able to look at myself in mirror).

2.  I am not going around trying to recruit others
to eat meat and abandon their heathen vegan ways

...and, to boot, telling them this is the only TRUTHFUL way, even though I can't prove any such thing;

...AND insisting that my right to do so be constitutionally-protected;

...AND then abusing my privilege to oppress vegans into adopting a more meat-friendly lifestyle.


I object to Islam and Christianity because it is NOT PASSIVE
and any Theist who tries to convert me
is going to end up being confronted with their hypocrisy.


That is all I mean by being held responsible, Thumpalumpacus.

I am not blaming them for terrorist acts committed by others.

I never said that.

I only said I hold them responsible for winking at it or sticking their head in the sand
(and I am only "holding them responsible" when they open the conversation with me).


I am not saying that they should be stripped of equal opportunities or equal rights.
Of course not.

Nor would I suggest that we should ever, to use YOUR word, "punish" moderate Theists
for the actions of extremists.

But because their religion is not passive, and seeks to recruit,
AND passes their unsubstantiated theories off as "TRUTH" with impunity,
AND enjoy a great deal of privilege as a result of their "religious freedom" being constitutionally protected,
AND abuses that privilege to oppress others (IE: LGBT ...and therefore, bigotry)

THEN, if they want to bang heads with me,
I will not shrink from pointing out their hypocrisy.

And you are trying to say that makes me a bigot.  Pfft.

That's all.

More later...I am a bit busy at the moment.

[Rhondazvous]

I would not be the fool who tries to tell you who to trust and who not to trust. But for me I will not give credibility to people who follow a book that permits them to lie. People will lie anyway, but to worship a god that sanctions lying takes it to a whole nother level.

There is even a word for lying about one's faith: Taqiyya.. Of course individual Muslims are left to interpret what it means to be compelled But it is clear lying is permitted.

yes, Rhonda, I agree.

I dislike Islam and Christianity equally, but I must admit that nowhere in Christianity are you given "permission" to lie, under any circumstances.  Christians would be cast to the lions rather than lie about their devotion to Christ just to save their own skins, because their trust in God to save them, either in this life or in the next, should be demonstrated. 

But Taqiyya tacitly permits deceit in Islam....and that opens up a whole nother can of worms.

I get tired of repeating that I believe there are decent, moderate people in every religion.

What I am saying is that those decent, moderate people are basically cherry-picking their way through a religion that is actually quite violent and oppressive, and a religion that screams "RACIST!" if you dare point it out.

Cherry-picking is not okay.

I would never belong to a religion,
but if I was going to convert to Islam,
I'd be an extremist...because that's the only version of Islam that I really think honestly reflects what Islam is.

I grew up around "moderate" Christians...and when push came to shove,
many of them where not so very moderate, at all.

I despise Wesboro Baptist Church...but I give them credit for at least being consistent
in their criticism of Kim Davis' hypocrisy.

Same with Al Qaeda, who recently distanced themselves from ISIL:
Al Qaeda might be extremist nutjobs...but their extreme take on Islam seems at least more sincere
than the flagrantly-hypocritical, blatant thuggery of ISIL, who abduct and sell girls into sexual slavery.

If you are a god-fearing person and you are also a decent person,
then what I am saying is shit or get off the pot:

Either become a Deist or pick a religion that is at least more peaceful at its core, if you must pick one at all.

to me, moderate muslims and christians might be nice people, but they are kidding themselves.

and the unconscionable part is that they belong to religions that seek (unlike Judaism) to recruit...

...and pass off their unsubstantiated theories about god as if they are undisputed truths, to do so

...and then call me a bigot because I won't refrain for condemning their choice to be part of that religion,
as if their cherry-picking is actually laudable behavior.

I'm not calling them terrorists.

I have no issue with their race.

I am saying:  shit or get off the pot.  Own the fact that you want to belong to an evil religion, but not be associated with that evil
...and only for the not-very-good reason that you cherry-picked your way through the holy writ.

Own the fact that if your devotion to God was really sincere,
you'd question how legitimate that holy writ must be,
if it is so open to misinterpretation and abuse.

A truly Divine book would be impossible to misinterpret.

I would personally look in the mirror and ask myself if I can, in all honesty, believe this religion really serves God
...and do I owe it to my God to abandon this evil religion;

...or, if this religion DOES serve God...is this God worth serving?

I would ask myself if it is possible that perhaps I am merely adhering to this religion for the sake of my own comfort level?

Do I belong to the religion, for the purpose of serving God?  or for the purpose of serving the Religion?  (Or more truly, my own interests?)

And god-fearing people who think they can have the penny and the bun should not be able to duck out of the responsibility that goes with consenting to be part of a religion that does that.

Cherry-picking.

What I'd like to do is go through the Quran verse by verse and take out all the violence. What's left is what moderate Muslims bade their faith on. But what kind of religion can you have with a holy book that's only 2 pages long?

[MTL]

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

Blacks in America all labor under discrimination. Does the fact that non-criminal blacks understand better than whites why black gangbangers are in in prison from social circumstances mean that they are apologists for the crimes of their fellow blacks? No, of course it doesn't. And in the same vein, having been raised in the same culture, moderate Muslims can both understand the anger of the extremists at the same time they disavow the results of it.

Very poor example.

Black people cannot help being black,
and their being black is not hurting anyone,
and they shouldn't have to be ashamed of it,
or experience social inequality because of their race.

Religion is a choice, and an ideology that has been abused to oppress people and enforce bigotry.

If a non-criminal black understands better than a white person why black gangbangers, as you put it,
are in prison as a result of social circumstances,
then no, that in and of itself does not, of course, make them apologists for the actual crimes of their fellow blacks.

But it sounds as if you are trying to use the example
of innocent black people defending innocent victims of social injustice behind bars

...and compare it to moderate Muslims sympathizing with the anger, if not the actions, of terrorists;

which is inconsistent,
not to mention irrelevant,
since being persecuted for your race

is not the same thing
as people taking issue with the violence of your ideology.

And besides, anyone on the outside, regardless of race, may protest that an incarcerated person is being wrongly persecuted via social circumstances, when that is not the case.

Once again, look at Kim Davis.  Her defenders allege she is a victim of social injustice and bigotry.


And as far as the anger of Muslims goes,
I think that is a different ball of wax:

What issue specifically, are you referring to, that the Muslims angry about?
Western politics and military after oil in the Middle East?

Or, are Muslim men here sympathetic to the wrath of Muslim men in the Middle East
because Western non-muslims are critical of female genital mutilation???

One type of anger, I could understand.

The other, I have no sympathy for,
because it is only angry that its bigotry and violence against women is being interfered-with.

[Rhondazvous]

I would never belong to a religion,
but if I was going to convert to Islam,
I'd be an extremist...because that's the only version of Islam that I really think honestly reflects what Islam is.

Which is quite telling. Pity, I really had a high opinion of you.

It also reflects a perfect ignorance of what Islam was in the Middle Ages and what it provided to our western civilisation. Hint, we wouldn't even know the number zero and still go by Galen's teachings when it comes to medicine. But that's perfectly all right, since Islam always was and still is the most despicable religion of all.

Yes, the Moors educated Europe, but the Arabs who forced Islam on them were both ignorant and illiterate. So Islam cannot take credit for what it did not do. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

[abaris]

...and compare it to moderate Muslims sympathizing with the anger, if not the actions, of terrorists;

Simple answer, educate yourself on the countries in question, their history and current state. After that, try to walk in the shoes of these people and see if you can't grasp the reason for their anger.

[abaris]

Yes, the Moors educated Europe, but the Arabs who forced Islam on them were both ignorant and illiterate. So Islam cannot take credit for what it did not do. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

Simply put - no. Answer: read up on the history of regions such as medieval Syria, what we now call Iraq and the regions of Northern Africa. The region you obviously associate with Moors, since they came from there. But here's the thing. The ones settling on the Iberian peninsula were invaded by a different tribe of the same ethnicity. So Moors replaced Moors, not Arabs.

I would also look for persons like Avicenna, where he came from and what he stood for. Also compare the treatment of jews in the Islamic realms to their treatment in christian Europe.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I would also look for persons like Avicenna, where he came from and what he stood for. Also compare the treatment of jews in the Islamic realms to their treatment in christian Europe.

That last point is very salient. Jews were persecuted more than people like to think in Europe for pretty much the entire reign of Christendom. Christians and Jews were actually treated very well under some Islamic regimes in the ME in centuries gone by.

It's ironic really that those wishing to re-establish the Caliphate in the ME now imagine a system which is actually centuries backwards from the Caliphates of old in terms of social and scientific advancement. Not to say the region didn't have its barbarity back then however because it obviously did.

[abaris]

It's ironic really that those wishing to re-establish the Caliphate in the ME now imagine a system which is actually centuries backwards from the Caliphates of old in terms of social and scientific advancement. Not to say the region didn't have its barbarity back then however because it obviously did.

That's true. But true to any religious radicals they have no idea what their culture stood for in the past. The barbarity back then was global by todays standards. Islamic realms weren't any more or less barbaric than the christian ones.