A Simple Rule

[Mister Agenda]

But you are a bigot if you oppose Germans because some of them were/are Nazis. Being a Muslim is more akin to being a German than to Nazi ideology.

NO!
IT'S!
NOT!

Good use of capitalization, if you think shouting is a valid method of argumentation.

Islam is a belief, not a race.

Very few Germans were 'born into' Naziism. Those who became Nazis were not born into an established Nazi culture where every adult they knew took Naziism completely for granted. Nazis consciously chose to be Nazis. Germans do not consciously choose to be Germans, it's an accident of birth. In this way being a Muslim is analogous to being a German.

Every Muslim can become an ex-Muslim.

Every German can become an ex-German, too.

Sweet Reason, why is this such a point of controversy?

My guess it that it's because you have blinders on when it comes to Islam that prevent you from working through an analogy appropriately or lead you to over-extend it.

No, as soon as you start the conversation, people pre-emptively scream you're painting with a broad brush and being prejudiced against an entire people.

And you don't see that as having anything to do with you 'starting the conversation' with a broad brush? Is it some kind of compulsion with you?

The recent Affleck-Harris discussion is the perfect example. Harris did specifically open the discussion with "Islamic theocracy".

Really? I thought he opened with

“We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where criticism of the religion gets conflated with bigotry towards muslims as people,” Harris began. “It’s intellectually ridiculous.”

In other words, he opened by pre-emptively attacking his detractors, just like you usually do on this topic. Can you imagine any reason why someone who doesn't feel that's a fair description of their position might object to what you're saying right off the bat? It's pretty hypocritical to lead with something you have to know is provocative to the audience you're complaining about and also complain that you successfully provoked them.

It's a Bill O'Riley type of opening gambit that is disappointing to encounter among supposedly intellectually rigorous people.

This is specific to extremists and Islamists. Affleck ignored this distinction and accused him of being racist against a billion people, trying to shout him down (and thus proved Harris' point).

Harris was clear that he blamed Islam itself for Islamic extremism, and characterized Muslims who are not extremists as 'not serious about their religion'.

Islamic extremism.

Or just plain Islam, at least in its current incarnation.

If you like. Clearly you are not the one interested in moving farther along in the conversation if so, however. It's amazing to me how you stick on that first point and whine that it's everyone else stopping you from criticizing Islam. If we were talking about any other broad demographic in the world, I think you could see it. Or would you insist on just calling Jewish terrorism, 'Judaism'?

The Islam in a previous incarnation, pre-Crusades, seemed to promote science and learning. Why is that? What changed? How do we change it back? I'd like to have this conversation.

History, and it's a conversation that you prevent by insisting that first we must agree Islam itself is the problem.

That's hardly always the case. People openly criticize Islam all the time without serious consequence. Your list is infinitesimal compared to the list of people who have openly criticized Islam without having to go into hiding or receiving a single threat.

Can you cite any examples? "A single threat" and the implication that this list is exhaustive compared to those killed or threatened is quite a claim.

It's not nearly as big a claim as that out of millions of people who have publicly criticized Islam, most of them have gotten death threats or suffered other serious consequences. Your 'evidence' is anecdotal. Usually you would be smart enough to know that you can't meaningfully make such a claim based on anecdotal evidence, but not on this subject. It's the kind of claim that requires statistics to support it. What is the universe of people who publicly criticize Islam? Over what period of time? What percentage have suffered serious consequences? How did you find that out? There was a South Park episode that portrayed Mohammed, how come that one was ignored by the Muslim World, and the later one generated a death threat?

I posit that most people who publicly criticize Islam are in a position to feel safe in doing so, so one would expect little consequence for most of them. Talking heads are not particularly shy on the matter.

I wonder if the correlation between the danger you're in for not conforming to the majority ideology or religion has more to do with whether your country is an undeveloped mess than exactly which ideology or religion is on top?

An interesting question. There are plenty of poor, undeveloped countries that are non-Muslim in majority that we can compare to test this hypothesis. I'll wager the Abrahamic religions are more violent and less tolerant since ideology has everything to do with what kind of behavior I expect.

I see you've moved the goalposts to include all Abrahamic religions, as though that's what we were talking about instead of Islam specifically. I'll assume that means you're aware that undeveloped Christian countries aren't shining lights compared to Muslim countries.

If you make their scriptures the problem, reform is impossible.

I wish I had the power to make their scriptures anything. The question is are their scriptures the problem?

Wow, however did you manage to ask that question in the face of radical anti-Islamophobes preventing you from having this conversation?

Since there are countries with a majority population that has similarly problematic scriptures with a much smaller degree of radical extremism, I think it's safe to conclude that scriptures aren't at the heart of the problem.

It's not an excuse. It's a literal fact that the Muslims who are terrorists are radicals. You're the one who seems to have a problem with that fact.

I don't have a problem with that fact. I keep saying, "show me the radicals of a religion and I'll show you the teachings of that religion".

And I'll say 'show me the moderates of a religion, and I'll show you the people we should want to see become a bigger percentage and wield more influence than the fundamentalists'. I'll also say 'show me the majority of a religion's followers, and I'll show you what most of the religion's followers are like'.

If any group in a religion IS the religion, it's the majority.

Not necessarily. Fred Phelps doesn't represent a majority of Christians but he does understand what scripture says. Most Christians don't. Most Christians have never actually read the Bible.

Like a fundamentalist, you focus on literal interpretation of scripture. Moderates don't agree that scripture should be interpreted so literally. When it comes to ancient scriptures, the cherry-pickers in favor of modernity have my full support, while the cherry-pickers in favor of reactionism have my condemnation. When dealing with scripture, cherry-picking is unavoidable, and it mystifies me why a deist would pick the side picking the most violent interpretation as the most correct one. It doesn't seem helpful to be telling moderate Christians that they're doing it wrong and if they want to be REAL Christians, they should be doing it like Phelps. I'd be afraid I might be too successful in convincing them of that.

So which group represents an ideology? One man who knows it and fully embraces it or ten people who kind of believe in something like it sort of in a way?

They're distinct ideologies which each group is representing and fully embracing. Criticizing moderates for not being fundamentalists is like criticizing Independents for not being Republicans. The reason they're not fundamentalists (or Republicans) is because they disagree with them on many points. And unless you're on the side of Republicans, you might want to be careful if you're a liberal of telling Independents they have to choose between Republicans and Democrats down the line, and that their course of agreeing with Democrats on some things and Republicans on some things is illegtitimate. It's likely to make them think more poorly of Democrats if that group is seen as telling them they're wrong to take a middle path, which is an ideology in itself.

[Mystic]

How do you know the Radicals aren't misunderstanding the religion? Have you heard of Khawarij before?

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't you think that your question is a bit too convenient? See, what happened at Auschwitz was this. The SS told the rank and file to put the jews -on- the ovens...the wermacht was low on bread....not -in- the ovens.



Godwin aside...don't you think (supposing that they are mistaken) that's an awfully large mistake? There must be enough leeway to drive a semi through if two people can read one book and one becomes a suicide bomber and the other a baker on the basis of the same lines in a story about djinn.

[DeistPaladin]

Good use of capitalization, if you think shouting is a valid method of argumentation.

I get that way when I make arguments that are repeatedly ignored.

Germans do not consciously choose to be Germans, it's an accident of birth. In this way being a Muslim is analogous to being a German.

When you find the "Islam gene" then I'll concede that Islam is a race. Until then, it's an ideology that is open to criticism in the field of ideas and not associated with any individual or people.

Every German can become an ex-German, too.

Not by heritage. By citizenship, perhaps, but not by heritage. And heritage, that is affiliating a label with a person and not a concept, is what we're talking about. Therefore, your point that one can change citizenship is moving the goal posts.

My guess it that it's because you have blinders on when it comes to Islam that prevent you from working through an analogy appropriately or lead you to over-extend it.

Or maybe I understand the basic concept that Islam is not a race.

Potential for indoctrination from birth does not turn an idea into a race.

I'd like to reach an agreement on this point before we go any further.

[Mister Agenda]

There definitely seems to be people getting more uncomfortable when islam is criticised, as opposed to Christianity. That makes no sense. They are both bonkers religions that are harmful and need gutting (ideally).

Perhaps because most of us are from majority-Christian countries, we tend to criticize Christianity more intelligently than we criticize Islam. When we talk about bad actions by Christians, we tend to focus on the specific subsections of Christianity involved. The Catholic Church has a problem with its hierarchy defending pedophile priests, the WBC is the church that pickets the funerals or soldiers, the Lord's Resistance Army kidnaps children, the Christian Identity movement is openly racist, Dominionists are trying to take over the USA and impose their version of sharia. But when it's Muslims acting badly, we have a tendency to just say 'Islam is doing this or that' unless we have a reason to be more specific for clarity, like saying 'Boko Haram' so you know we're talking about trouble in Nigeria or 'ISIS' so you know we're referring to the Syria/Iraq region. Otherwise we're happy to hang it on Islam, and pretend the brave Muslim Kurds (for instance) who are fighting ISIS don't deserve to be distinguished from ISIS.

In fact, I sympathise more with islam because they often have people actually threatening their life for disbelief rather than just social isolation etc. Once they are in a free country, then they are choosing to continue with the bullshit, rather than having to.

What percentage of 'they' are you talking about?

Islam, muslim, whatever. If they are making their religion their identity, that's even more insane.

You're using such a loose definition of insanity that it includes most of the world's population.

[abaris]

Or maybe I understand the basic concept that Islam is not a race.

Potential for indoctrination from birth does not turn an idea into a race.

I'd like to reach an agreement on this point before we go any further.

Yeah, how about bigotry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

That's what we're talking about. Taking a bunch of people following a certain common denominator and to throw them all into the same pot.

From that point of view, I invite you again to review your arguments by inserting "jew" instead of "muslim" or "Islam". I also invite you to review certain comments by public figures.

[robvalue]

Percentage of they? Sorry I don't understand what you mean. I don't know what percentage of muslims are under threat of death to conform, but I think I heard it was like 13 countries or something. Maybe they weren't all muslim countries.

I don't know how many live in free countries either. Not sure why it's important to what I said.

[Mister Agenda]

Good use of capitalization, if you think shouting is a valid method of argumentation.

I get that way when I make arguments that are repeatedly ignored.

Your arguments have not been ignored, they've been refuted.

Germans do not consciously choose to be Germans, it's an accident of birth. In this way being a Muslim is analogous to being a German.

When you find the "Islam gene" then I'll concede that Islam is a race.

Why would you 'concede' something no one here is claiming? It's clear that we're the ones whose arguments aren't being listened to.

Until then, it's an ideology that is open to criticism in the field of ideas and not associated with any individual or people.

That is correct. Once again you demonstrate your erroneous understanding of the people to whom you are talking, none of whom have said that Islam is not an ideology or that it's not open to criticism. Trying to get through to you on that point is largely what this discussion has been about.

Every German can become an ex-German, too.

Not by heritage. By citizenship, perhaps, but not by heritage.

So which one do you suppose I meant?

And heritage, that is affiliating a label with a person and not a concept, is what we're talking about. Therefore, your point that one can change citizenship is moving the goal posts.

Because when someone born into a Muslim society stops being a Muslim, they no longer have a Muslim heritage? How does that work? I'm no longer a Christian but I certainly still have a Christian heritage.

My guess it that it's because you have blinders on when it comes to Islam that prevent you from working through an analogy appropriately or lead you to over-extend it.

Or maybe I understand the basic concept that Islam is not a race.

No kidding, Sherlock.

Potential for indoctrination from birth does not turn an idea into a race.

Ya think?

I'd like to reach an agreement on this point before we go any further.

That seems unlikely given that you seem to be incapbable of comprehending on what points we already agree. This is exactly what I meant by 'blinders'. It's not like you're not smart enough to get that I'm not claiming Islam is a race, it's your preconception of what my position must be if I'm not on team 'Islamophobia is not real' that's keeping you from seeing it.

---

Percentage of they? Sorry I don't understand what you mean. I don't know what percentage of muslims are under threat of death to conform, but I think I heard it was like 13 countries or something. Maybe they weren't all muslim countries.

I don't know how many live in free countries either. Not sure why it's important to what I said.

What you said:

"In fact, I sympathise more with islam because they often have people actually threatening their life for disbelief rather than just social isolation etc. Once they are in a free country, then they are choosing to continue with the bullshit, rather than having to."

I took the liberty of bolding the 'they' about whom I'm confused concerning who you are talking about.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Germans do not consciously choose to be Germans, it's an accident of birth. In this way being a Muslim is analogous to being a German.

When you find the "Islam gene" then I'll concede that Islam is a race. Until then, it's an ideology that is open to criticism in the field of ideas and not associated with any individual or people.

He didn't say it was a race, or genetic; he said it was an accident of birth.

Look, I know you can read better than this. You're a smart sonofabitch and I've got mucho respect for you. But you're strawmanning him, and you should know better.

We all know that being born into a religion is a fact; it's why religions tend to be geographically centered (Buddhism in South Asia, Islam in the Middle East and Africa, Christianity in Europe and the Americas); it's also why children tend to adopt the faith of their parents -- because they are programmed by their family and culture to share that same faith. He's obviously not alleging that this function is genetic.

[DeistPaladin]

Yeah, how about bigotry?

The key word in the definition is "unfairly".

It is not bigotry to hate bad ideas like Nazism.

It would be bigotry to hate an idea for no reason.

That's what we're talking about. Taking a bunch of people following a certain common denominator and to throw them all into the same pot.

I'm not doing this.

From that point of view, I invite you again to review your arguments by inserting "jew" instead of "muslim" or "Islam". I also invite you to review certain comments by public figures.

I've already pointed out how that's unfair because Judaism IS a race and a culture and a religion. I can insert "Christian" into what I've posted about Islam and I'm perfectly comfortable with it. Nobody has ever accused me of bigotry even with my most scathing reviews of Christian absurdities and abuses.