Atheism as a teacher

[audiogel]

Like the bible, it's a big book that says alot of things.  Not all of the things it says agree.  That's ignoring the ability of the reader to interpret.  Ad that in, and it;s possible that no two lines agree with one another, depending on who you ask.  There's no reason to read the quran.  Just apologize for offending your friend, if you feel the need, and let it go....seriously, lol.  You don;t want to pursue a career in education with the "bigot" label hovering over your head, however unjustly it may have been assigned.   Welcome to the world of the religious, where you have to shut your face and know your place.

With the risk of sounding childish I find that it is simply not fair that I should not be allowed to voice what I think because it's negative against religion and I certainly don't feel that I should apologise for offending her as that was never my intention - she chose to be offended. I would happily sacrifice my job in order to exercise my right to free speech. I have made it clear to her that she is a human being and for that I love her, but I happen to dislike her religion (and any other) greatly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Life isn't fair.  I know...I know.....but you might reconsider when you're unemployed, and that's how privilege works, lol.

[audiogel]

Life isn't fair.  I know...I know.....but you might reconsider when you're unemployed, and that's how privilege works, lol.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP

This quote says it all for me:

"Religion" is a nearly useless term. It's a term like "sports". Now there are sports like Badminton and sports like Thai Boxing, and they have almost nothing in common apart from breathing. There are sports that are just synonymous with the risk of physical injury or even death … There is, I'm happy to say, a religion of peace in this world, but it's not Islam. The claim that Islam is a religion of peace that we hear ceaselessly reiterated is completely delusional. Now Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. Gandhi got his non-violence from the Jains. The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you. Jain extremists are paralysed by their pacifism. Jain extremists can't take their eyes off the ground when they walk lest they step on an ant... Needless to say they are vegetarian. So the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn't fundamentalism. We often hear this said; these are euphemisms... The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

[audiogel]

@ the OP

This quote says it all for me:

"Religion" is a nearly useless term. It's a term like "sports". Now there are sports like Badminton and sports like Thai Boxing, and they have almost nothing in common apart from breathing. There are sports that are just synonymous with the risk of physical injury or even death … There is, I'm happy to say, a religion of peace in this world, but it's not Islam. The claim that Islam is a religion of peace that we hear ceaselessly reiterated is completely delusional. Now Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. Gandhi got his non-violence from the Jains. The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you. Jain extremists are paralysed by their pacifism. Jain extremists can't take their eyes off the ground when they walk lest they step on an ant... Needless to say they are vegetarian. So the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn't fundamentalism. We often hear this said; these are euphemisms... The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

 
I LOVE this!

[Tiberius]

I guess the one sticky point, is that the quran does, indeed, advocate for the death of kafir, and when you can't manage that, their treatment as second class citizens. The radicals aren't exactly being "un-islamic". Most people find ways to square that circle, and rightly so. Is islam to blame for the things that radical muslims do? At least in part, and when it explictly makes requests of believers, yes. To state otherwise is silly. Does this mean that all muslims will do those things, or believe that those things are righteous? No, ofc not. The offended friend is, herself, very dismissive of others religious convictions, privileging her own interpretations over those of her fellows for no discernible reason. It's hard for me to manufacture sympathy for people in that situation, personally. ISIS, for example, is as thoroughly and devoutly muslim as your offended friend, and that's something she'll probably need to come to terms with at some point. But there's no sense in stirring the pot at work in any case.

The problem is, "Islam", like "Christianity" isn't easily defined by a few quotes from scripture, but rather it changes based wholly on the sect, and the individual interpretations of the scriptures. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of horrible quotes as well, but it doesn't necessarily make Christianity horrible. Really, "Islam" and "Christianity" are vast umbrella terms that try to pull together a lot of different religious groups under a common belief (for Islam, that Muhammad is the prophet; for Christianity, that Jesus is the Messiah). Apart from those common beliefs, if you were to take two Muslims at random, you would find a plethora of differing and often contradicting beliefs concerning all manner of things.

So blaming "Islam" rather than "fundamentalist Islam" or "extremist Islam" is a bit like blaming the Republicans for Bush, or the Democrats for Obama, rather than realising the truth, which is that there are reasonable Republicans and reasonable Democrats, but conversely also ass-backwards Republicans and ass-backwards Democrats too. Or another analogy, it would be like saying you hate all Pop Music because you hate Justin Bieber.

With the risk of sounding childish I find that it is simply not fair that I should not be allowed to voice what I think because it's negative against religion and I certainly don't feel that I should apologise for offending her as that was never my intention - she chose to be offended. I would happily sacrifice my job in order to exercise my right to free speech. I have made it clear to her that she is a human being and for that I love her, but I happen to dislike her religion (and any other) greatly.

Don't get me wrong, you're perfectly within your rights to voice a negative opinion about anything, and you should be allowed to voice what you think. However, and this is a big however, part of having that right is knowing when to use it, and recognizing when you might upset someone with your words. Some things you just don't say, even if you believe them to be true, because ultimately, what's the point of saying them if all they are going to do is hurt someone?

In future, if you really want your thoughts to be heard, try to reword them to be less confrontational. For example, instead of coming right out and saying "I absolutely blame islam", ask "But don't ISIS get their ideas from Islam?" Immediately you have changed the tone of your words from accusational to inquisitive, which helps develop the discussion in a friendlier manner. Your colleague might respond "Yes, but it's a fundamentalist form of Islam that most Muslims don't subscribe to, so it's unfair to blame Islam as a whole", and then you can agree / disagree with them, challenge their viewpoint, etc. but in a less confrontational manner.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree that fundamentalism is the problem but it does matter what the fundamentals in the text are. Thank fuck we haven't got as many people following strictly the fundamentals of the horror in the Old Testament anymore, but if we did things would be back to the barbaric times of thousands of years ago for such people.

As Sam Harris says, what the fundamentals are matter because Jainist extremism for example would be completely non-violent and harmless by definition. And even more so than moderate Jainism.

[Edwardo Piet]

In future, if you really want your thoughts to be heard, try to reword them to be less confrontational. For example, instead of coming right out and saying "I absolutely blame islam", ask "But don't ISIS get their ideas from Islam?"

I agree that that is a more sensitive way of putting it but blaming Islam is of course not the same as blaming all Muslims, just as blaming religion is not the same as blaming all religious people. Anti religion is not the same as anti-theist. Anti-Islam is not the same as anti-muslim.

[audiogel]

I guess the one sticky point, is that the quran does, indeed, advocate for the death of kafir, and when you can't manage that, their treatment as second class citizens. The radicals aren't exactly being "un-islamic". Most people find ways to square that circle, and rightly so. Is islam to blame for the things that radical muslims do? At least in part, and when it explictly makes requests of believers, yes. To state otherwise is silly. Does this mean that all muslims will do those things, or believe that those things are righteous? No, ofc not. The offended friend is, herself, very dismissive of others religious convictions, privileging her own interpretations over those of her fellows for no discernible reason. It's hard for me to manufacture sympathy for people in that situation, personally. ISIS, for example, is as thoroughly and devoutly muslim as your offended friend, and that's something she'll probably need to come to terms with at some point. But there's no sense in stirring the pot at work in any case.

The problem is, "Islam", like "Christianity" isn't easily defined by a few quotes from scripture, but rather it changes based wholly on the sect, and the individual interpretations of the scriptures. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of horrible quotes as well, but it doesn't necessarily make Christianity horrible. Really, "Islam" and "Christianity" are vast umbrella terms that try to pull together a lot of different religious groups under a common belief (for Islam, that Muhammad is the prophet; for Christianity, that Jesus is the Messiah). Apart from those common beliefs, if you were to take two Muslims at random, you would find a plethora of differing and often contradicting beliefs concerning all manner of things.

So blaming "Islam" rather than "fundamentalist Islam" or "extremist Islam" is a bit like blaming the Republicans for Bush, or the Democrats for Obama, rather than realising the truth, which is that there are reasonable Republicans and reasonable Democrats, but conversely also ass-backwards Republicans and ass-backwards Democrats too. Or another analogy, it would be like saying you hate all Pop Music because you hate Justin Bieber.

With the risk of sounding childish I find that it is simply not fair that I should not be allowed to voice what I think because it's negative against religion and I certainly don't feel that I should apologise for offending her as that was never my intention - she chose to be offended. I would happily sacrifice my job in order to exercise my right to free speech. I have made it clear to her that she is a human being and for that I love her, but I happen to dislike her religion (and any other) greatly.

Don't get me wrong, you're perfectly within your rights to voice a negative opinion about anything, and you should be allowed to voice what you think. However, and this is a big however, part of having that right is knowing when to use it, and recognizing when you might upset someone with your words. Some things you just don't say, even if you believe them to be true, because ultimately, what's the point of saying them if all they are going to do is hurt someone?

In future, if you really want your thoughts to be heard, try to reword them to be less confrontational. For example, instead of coming right out and saying "I absolutely blame islam", ask "But don't ISIS get their ideas from Islam?" Immediately you have changed the tone of your words from accusational to inquisitive, which helps develop the discussion in a friendlier manner. Your colleague might respond "Yes, but it's a fundamentalist form of Islam that most Muslims don't subscribe to, so it's unfair to blame Islam as a whole", and then you can agree / disagree with them, challenge their viewpoint, etc. but in a less confrontational manner.

Thank you for your explanation and for offering another way of wording it

[Tiberius]

Anti-Islam is not the same as anti-muslim.

True, but saying you're anti-Islam to a Muslim is going to get you a negative reaction, simply because you are telling them that you are against their religion, something they hold close to them. They aren't going to give a fuck about semantics or technicalities when you are positioning yourself as "against" their religion.