A Simple Rule

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is beside the point, as my OP asked whether or not it's true rather than how we should be treating moderates. Perhaps you agree but think it's best to keep quiet about that lest we drive more into the fundy camp? Or perhaps you disagree in which case please elaborate. Either way, beside the point.

I'm not advocating a course of action, but rather, pointing out a possible result of adopting this position of yours. But since you asked, I think extremists should be singled out for criticism, not moderates.

Ignoring that, are you suggesting that discussing how "moderates" water down their religion with foreign elements like modernity and personal conscience (frankly, this seems to be doing nothing more than pointing out the definition of a moderate) actually drives them to become fundamentalists?

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.

Do you know of even anecdotal accounts of this happening? Statistical evidence and peer reviewed studies would be ideal.

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.

The issue there is linguistic; people are using "racist" when they mean "bigot".

No, actually there are some on the left who seriously suggest that criticism of Islam is rooted in racism.

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.

Just some of them or all?

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.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[Dystopia]

There is certainly discussions between liberals regarding religion - However I take it that you're using the American meaning of liberal. As far as I know, here in Portugal the far left party (aka Communist party) openly states positions against religion and theism anytime they are presented with an opportunity, and it is somewhat common - But moderate socialists, aka center left, have differing views, even though most support secularism, the problem is that they have a weird obsession with protecting minorities and traditionally discriminated groups, and this includes protecting Muslims, JW's, and so on

The problem is that the only people with a minimum of political credibility arguing against Islam are the nationalists, the same who probably support kicking out all immigrants, banning blacks and want to favour Catholicism over anything else. This is why I don't manifest my agreement towards Christians that criticize Islam, since they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

[Brian37]

Wouldn't Christianity or any Abrahamic religion fall into the same group as Islam. They have nearly the identical teachings and have the same god. They also have nearly the same radicals even Christianity has their radical nutcases. just throwing that out there.

Yes it is the same strain of the god of Abraham. And the only way the west became civil was when people stopped allowing religion to run public law and more people went with their evolutionary empathy and watered down their books to justify clinging to what otherwise would be the same old school sexism, bigotry and violence done by those prior who were taking their books word for word.

[abaris]

The problem is that the only people with a minimum of political credibility arguing against Islam are the nationalists, the same who probably support kicking out all immigrants, banning blacks and want to favour Catholicism over anything else. This is why I don't manifest my agreement towards Christians that criticize Islam, since they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

And there you have it. The problem doesn't lie with critizising Islam. It deserves to be critizised. The problem lies with painting all muslims with the same brush, which ultimately leads to the above people being the most vocal about it. And it's also not done with any other denomination.

Here's a little experiment. Whenever someone feels like saying muslims this and muslims that, just replace muslim with jew for a moment and try that shoe for size.

[Mister Agenda]

There is certainly discussions between liberals regarding religion - However I take it that you're using the American meaning of liberal. As far as I know, here in Portugal the far left party (aka Communist party) openly states positions against religion and theism anytime they are presented with an opportunity, and it is somewhat common - But moderate socialists, aka center left, have differing views, even though most support secularism, the problem is that they have a weird obsession with protecting minorities and traditionally discriminated groups, and this includes protecting Muslims, JW's, and so on.

To further confuse matters, someone who is politically conservative may be religiously liberal, vice versa, and all other possible combinations. Religious and political liberalism are often correlated, but frequently are not. I'd say they're on different axes.

[Dystopia]

The problem is that the only people with a minimum of political credibility arguing against Islam are the nationalists, the same who probably support kicking out all immigrants, banning blacks and want to favour Catholicism over anything else. This is why I don't manifest my agreement towards Christians that criticize Islam, since they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

And there you have it. The problem doesn't lie with critizising Islam. It deserves to be critizised. The problem lies with painting all muslims with the same brush, which ultimately leads to the above people being the most vocal about it. And it's also not done with any other denomination.

Here's a little experiment. Whenever someone feels like saying muslims this and muslims that, just replace muslim with jew for a moment and try that shoe for size.

To have an idea how some European nationalists handle this, watch the positions of French female nationalist Marine Le Penn. She blames Muslims and immigrants for all of France's issues.

[DeistPaladin]

Here's a little experiment. Whenever someone feels like saying muslims this and muslims that, just replace muslim with jew for a moment and try that shoe for size.

Not fair. Jews ARE a race, if the word "race" has any meaning. The word "Jewish" refers to a people, a culture and a religion.

Now, replace the word "Muslim" with "Christian" or "Scientologist" and I have no problem at all.

---

The problem is that the only people with a minimum of political credibility arguing against Islam are the nationalists, the same who probably support kicking out all immigrants, banning blacks and want to favour Catholicism over anything else. This is why I don't manifest my agreement towards Christians that criticize Islam, since they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

All the more reason we need to make it clear that ridiculing bad ideas or discussing how dangerous ideologies are dangerous is not the same thing as persecuting a people. Muslims can become ex-Muslims, after all.

[Dystopia]

Despite what I'm saying, currently on the rise nationalist parties in Europe are not necessarily Christians, some of them like the French National Front defend secularism with all their heart, and the same goes for substantial differences in terms of ideology - The only thing they have in common is their hate for immigrants and an extreme worship of their countries.

[abaris]

Not fair. Jews ARE a race, if the word "race" has any meaning. The word "Jewish" refers to a people, a culture and a religion.

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.

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.

And it already shows, there are attacks against muslim community centers, there are already groups organising taking the streets, demanding the deportation of all muslims and muslims are already profiled and more often subject to police harrassment than other people, even if they did nothing wrong besides being muslims.