Just to beat my head against a wall one more time, yes, bigotry against Islam is racism.

[jobycom]

Or bigotry against Jews, or any other group where a religion and culture and ethnic identity are closely intertwined.

Oxford English dictionary:

Race: 1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group:

From Wikipedia:

Under "Racism:"

"According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination... [10]"

"Cultural racism exists when there is a widespread acceptance of stereotypes concerning different ethnic or population groups.[56] Where racism can be characterised by the belief that one race is inherently superior to another, cultural racism can be characterised by the belief that one culture is inherently superior to another.[57]"

Under "Islamophobia:"

"Several scholars consider Islamophobia as a form of racism.[35] A 2007 article in Journal of Sociology defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism and a continuation of anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism.[36] Similarly, John Denham has drawn parallels between modern Islamophobia and the antisemitism of the 1930s,[37] so have Maud Olofsson,[38] and Jan Hjärpe, among others."

"The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) defines Islamophobia as the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them (ECRI 2006). Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion".[4] It has also been defined as "fear of Muslims and Islam; rejection of the Muslim religion; or a form of differentialist racism" (Helbling 2011)."

--------------------------

Etcetera. Basically, "race" has always been about drawing distinctions. It has been based on language, nationality, skin color, ethnic heritage, and other such large vertical groupings. And while Islam is ALSO a religion, it is not just a religion, any more than Judaism is only a religion. It is also a cultural and ethnic identity.

So, saying "I don't agree with Islam because I don't believe in a god who created the world" is not racist, nor Islamophobic. But saying "Muslims follow a violent, sexist (insert insult) religion" is racist, because it attacks all Muslims by implying they are united in a single negative mindset, and makes unsupportable generalizations about them based on their common grouping. It may not fit the 20th century pseudo-scientific definition we have heard most often in this country, where the predominant type of racism was based on skin color, but it still fits the term. And it's horrific.

I'm an atheist. I disbelieve all religions equally (which actually doesn't mean completely, but that's a different discussion). But I'm a liberal. I love and relish all people in all of their various personalities, intelligences, beauties, and beliefs. And when I learn that 2 billion people see the world differently than I do, I don't think "How can they be so wrong?" I think, "What am I missing about what they are saying?" It makes the world a lot more fun and a lot less hateful for me.

Just my thoughts. Flame (or not) away.

[AuntPatsy]

1. Excellent!

[ZombieHorde]

2. I disagree with you but I won't flame you.

People can't choose their race but they can choose their religion, if we have free will about such things. I believe a person can have bigoted feelings toward Islam or Judaism without having bigoted feelings toward Arabs or ethnic Jews. For example, I believe an atheist Arab can have bigoted feelings about Islam while still loving his or her people.

[jobycom]

9. You can choose to believe something other than you do?

I can't. I'm an atheist. I couldn't suddenly choose to start believing in God. Many Muslims born into the religion couldn't change their belief without great psychological damage, either.

But that's not my point. Why do you say there are ethnic Jews, but not ethnic Muslims? Are you saying that Islam isn't also a culture and ethnic heritage, as well as a religion? And someone can choose what ethnic or cultural traditions they follow. Are ethnic and cultural hatreds not racism, then?

[PeaceNikki]

12. absolutely. I was raised in "the church". A very conservative evangelical one. I used to "believe"

Then I grew up. And now I'm an atheist. The same can be said for my entire immediate family. And that's not super unique.

[jobycom]

27. Could you change back? I mean, let's say Ted Cruz gets elected and makes us register

as atheists, and all that. Could you suddenly start believing in gods again to save your life, or increase your social status?

I didn't choose to stop believing in God. I just stopped believing in God. I couldn't just choose to start believing again. I mean, if a voice spoke to me, and I knew it wasn't schizophrenia or a stroke, I could change. But it wouldn't just be because I chose to.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Could I or you? Sure, were human.

Would I? Nope.

Religion is not a race. Muslim is not a race.

[jobycom]

68. No, I couldn't.

You might not believe what you believe, but I do. It isn't what I choose to believe, any more than I choose to believe in evolution, science, or the Oxford English Dictionary.

Which, btw, defines race as "1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group," which undoubtedly applies to Islam. So you can choose to not believe, but I can't.

[PeaceNikki]

82. OK, got it. Green Bay Packers fans are a race, ergo Bears fans are bigots.

Right?

[jobycom]

88. Show me what I said that would lead to that conclusion.

Maybe then I can show you where you aren't understanding me. See, that's the thing. You keep repeating the same point I was trying to overcome in the OP. I listed facts and definitions to make my point, but you keep repeating the points I addressed in the OP as though they somehow weren't addressed. That won't refute me. Say something that actually starts from a place of understanding what I said and then shows it to be wrong. That's how you win an argument--not by just ignoring the other person and restating the premise the other person was trying to refute. I mean, obviously I'm not communicating well, given the way this thread has gone. Obviously I'm somewhere far left of the far left, sadly (and to be frank, this bigotry is why I left DU before, and I probably will again). But honestly, I haven't seen a single post yet that does anything other than the equivalent of saying "No, global warming isn't happening, here's a snowball to prove it."

[Desert805]

129. Sums it up well, heh.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Free will regarding religious belief is discussed in the Religion group from time to time.

Most people in those debates believe religious views can be changed, but the change takes time and a lot of contemplation. This is why some people change their religion one more times throughout their life.

Why do you say there are ethnic Jews, but not ethnic Muslims?

We have different words for Muslims and Arabs, but we use the same words for Jews and Jews. I used the term "ethnic Jews" to differentiate from "religious Jews." A person who is 100% Irish can be either a Muslim or a religious Jew, but not an Arab or an ethnic Jew.

[Rhythm]

79. That's my take as well...

We have different words for Muslims and Arabs, but we use the same words for Jews and Jews. I used the term "ethnic Jews" to differentiate from "religious Jews." A person who is 100% Irish can be either a Muslim or a religious Jew, but not an Arab or an ethnic Jew.

I've known Arabs who were Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and atheist, but all were Arabs.

I've known people who were multi-generationally of ethnically Jewish heritage who were atheist or pagan.

I've known persons of the Muslims and Jewish faiths who were of all different races and ethnic groups.

Religion =/= race/ethnicity

[Drahthaardogs]

20. Of course you could.

People change their religious views all the time.

[Binkie The Clown]

37. I once knew a dedicated pro-Nazi guy in college. He was an asshole.

But of course, since I was not a racist, I didn't dare criticize his belief system, since both his parents where devoted Nazis too, so he really had no choice in what he was brought up to believe. There was no way he could just wake up one morning and stop believing in what his cultural heritage taught him to believed in.

He wasn't German, but as we all know, there is a strong historical connection between Germans and Nazis, so that makes any criticism of Naziism equivalent to anti-German racism. His own ethnicity was irrelevant.

Therefore, Naziphobia IS racism, by your standards. Still stand by your line of reasoning when you see it applied more universally? Is it really racist to criticize Nazis? If not, why not? And exactly what makes your case different from mine? And do be specific.

[snooper2]

89. "couldn't change their belief without great psychological damage"

Really?

LOL, I think a couple days and they would see all kinds of new freedoms. Damn, I don't have to wear this stupid veil anymore-

Holy shit snooper! I can eat your pork chops every day for years!

[jobycom]

96. So in your mind all Muslims were veils and eat pork chops, but would rather not?

And you don't see how that's racist?

[snooper2]

103. freedom from all religion is a beautiful thing

few hundred more years.....

[jobycom]

106. You must drive a Dodge. nt

[snooper2]

111. 2003 Dakota! Dodge it or Ram it Baby

[msongs]

3. nice try, those are just opinions from UN/EU paper pushers, and no more valuable than any other

opinions. are christians a race? Unitarians? satanists? taxi drivers? pizza shop owners?

[jobycom]

6. "Paper pusher" is how you describe learned experts?

Let's examine each of your questions.

Christians: generally not a race since the religion has few if any unifying cultural or ethnic universals and also is generally the dominant religion of the world and most of its powers--which means Christianity isn't often in a position to be the victim in a power inequity, as racism would require. However, if you are talking about, say, a specific Christian group which has maintained an ethnic identity based on birth moreso than conversion in a non-Christian country--say the Coptics in Egypt--then yes, hatred and persecution of them could be considered racism.

Unitarians, Satanists: Same as Christians, though I know of no such example where the religion and people have been closely identified as a powerless minority for long enough to have an ethnic identity.

Taxi drivers, pizza shop owners: If you can show me how they in any way fit the descriptions given by the "paper pushers" of an ethnic group, I'll answer.

Who would you consider worthy of defining racism and race? You reject the UN and the European Commission against Racism--two groups who seem qualified to have an opinion--as well as most psychologists and sociologists. Who would you consider not a "paper pusher?"

[scarletwoman]

4. The most populous Islamic country in the world is Indonesia. Are you saying that Islamaphobes are

racist against Indonesians? Are you saying that Islam totally defines Indonesian "ethnic and cutlural identity"? And that Indonesian "ethnic and cultural identity" is indistinguishable from Arab "ethnic and cultural identity"? Or from East Indian "ethnic and cultural identity"? Or from Pakistani "ethnic and cultural identity"? Or from Chechyan "ethnic and cultural identity"? Or from Albanian "ethnic and cultural identity"? Or from the "ethnic and cultural identity" of American converts to Islam?

Calling Islamophobia "racism" is absurd on its face.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Agree 100%

If Islam were primarily confined to a particular race or ethnicity, then I could see terms being interchangeable. However, that isn't the case.

[linuxman]

26. Came in here to post this.

It's amazing how ignorant those that accuse others of being ignorant racists are.

In some people's minds Muslim always means Arab/not white.

Are people who dislike Mormons (an overwhelmingly white Christian sect) racists?

Give me a fucking break.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. We agree, as usual.

[scarletwoman]

34. Yup!

[Pooka Fey]

63. Thank you for this post - doing your part to make DU a bit less dumb.

+1

[scarletwoman]

66. I wish! Thank you, though.

[Pooka Fey]

67. ...

[jobycom]

84. I am not, and didn't imply that in my post. I didn't even say anything that sounded like that.

I'm saying that "race" is any grouping of a people that you can come up with based on deeply seated characteristics of those people. It can be skin color (black, white--which are also arbitrary groupings, as I said in my post), nationality (Indonesian, Arab), language (Arabic, Spanish), or cultural (Jewish, Islamic). All that is required is for the characteristic to define a large, vertical (meaning all "classes," as opposed to something like hatred of the poor), and for the people holding the opinions to have power to oppress. So, Christians, for instance, in the US and Western countries, couldn't be victims of racism. Christians in non-Christian nations who have a shared ethnic and cultural background, like Coptic Christians in Egypt or Maronit Christians in Lebanon can be.

I don't know that translates into you saying Islam defining Indonesian identity. A person in the US, for instance, can be a black Muslim from Argentina, and face racism because of their skin color, religion, and/or country of origin, without those three factors being equated.

[Desert805]

130. Maybe you should read it again.

It couldn't be more clear, and really shouldn't leave you with any questions.

[catbyte]

5. I disagree. According to the federal government, Arab people are caucasian when filling out race.

I feel equal contempt for fundamentalist anything--Islam, Christianity, Judaism, whatever. It's all poison. It's not racism in my book, sorry. YMMV, however.

[dumbcat]

7. No,

I don't think that is correct.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Muslims are neither a race, nor an ethnic group.

Any more than Christians are a race or ethnic group.

These are Muslims:



So are these:



And these:

[scarletwoman]

18. Thank you. Exactly the point I was attempting to make in my post #4.

Islam is no more an ethnic group than Catholicism is.

[jobycom]

85. Tell me what you think a race is, then.

[Adrahil]

92. Race is a construct.

It's typically based on morphological characteristics, but can be applied to cultural groups. Religion is a part of culture, but doesn't define race. A phillipino Muslim is not the same race as an Arab Muslim, or a sub-Saharan African.

[Desert805]

131. Sounds so simple when you say it. :)

[LuvNewcastle]

10. I think the reason we're seeing such

an argument on the topic of race is that 'race' means different things in different parts of the world.

Most of us on DU have a view of race that is more dependent upon skin color than culture or religion. The reason Americans see things that way is because of our history of black slavery and eugenics. Race, as in color, is still important as to how we view people's socioeconomic status, as well as a host of other things.

Many scientists used to divide humans into Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid races. Of course, there are huge numbers of people who don't fit into any of those categories, but that did not stop those scientists from trying to pigeonhole people.

Undoubtedly, one reason for those classifications is the biblical story of Noah and his three sons who re-populated the world after the great flood. The racial divisions of the eugenicists were seen as having validity because they seemed to coincide with ancient myths.

'Race' means different things depending upon which area of the world you happen to be. Since race is really an artificial construct, no one is truly right or wrong about what it means.

Dividing people into races is a destructive tendency among humans, but I don't think it's going away anytime soon. In the meantime, I'll just accept whatever classifications people want to choose for themselves. If someone wants to call himself this race or that, it's no skin off my nose.

[brooklynite]

16. Very well...there are Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid Muslims...

...so criticism of Islam isn;t racist

[LuvNewcastle]

21. It really depends on the criticism.

A lot of people think that all Muslims are Arabs or, at least, brown people from the Middle East. Maher probably knows better, so I'd say that some of his remarks are bigoted, but not necessarily racist. Whatever. I'm not going to get excited by it either way.

[jobycom]

107. Well said. I'm more worried about racism than race.

The thing about race is that a person can use it however they define it as an empowering idea about themself, or as a destructive idea about someone else. Racism is about who someone hates, not who someone is.

My problem with the type of racism I see around here is that people try to pretend they aren't racist by redefining racism. I saw this growing up in Mississippi in the 70s with the classic line "You can be white and still be a (n word), and you can be black and not be a (n-word)." Nowadays it's "I can hate Muslims because they have a choice to be Muslim." That's really exactly the same thing as saying the n-word comment, because then it's back to being the fault of the victim instead of the hater.

[PeaceNikki]

110. Victim? What about victims of religious ideology? Women losing rights, LGBT fighting for them?

In same cases, women and LGBT being killed in the name of religion?

You seem to be really fucking hung up on defending ideology which has a deep rooted history of oppressing and killing people.

As a woman, a strong supporter of women, LGBT and a secular society, Republicans are my adversaries. Organized religion is as well. Christianity and Islam generally are examples of misogyny, hate and violence. And both attempt to inject these horrible beliefs into society, governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing Islam just because the RW does.

They criticize because it's not Christian. I criticize because its existence in its current form is in direct conflict with my core values. We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Popes, the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.

I cannot and will not respect it. Any of it. Not out of obligation, not out of fear and not because you think it's fukcing 'racist'.

Jesus fucking Christ, you're clueless.

I am done with you. Good day.

[Desert805]

132. Agreed. And also agreed you're wasting your time.

This person is being purposefully ignorant/obtuse.

[PeaceNikki]

11. From Freedom From Religion on a previous Maher Islam discussion

The missing piece of this puzzle is a basic assumption about religion Ben et. al. are mistakenly making. Their analogy of religion to race fails. Religion is not like race. Religion is an idea—a faith-based idea lacking any evidence—or a set of ideas to which one willingly adheres. Race can't be changed; religion can. All you have to do is change your mind. Think for yourself and you can be free from religion.

.....

Ideas dictate behavior, skin color does not. And religion is a set of common ideas to which one willingly subscribes. The caveat to this, and perhaps the hang up for Affleck, was noted by Maher and has been noted by Harris many times in the past. Religion is often an accident of birth and, in the case of Islam, leaving that religion can be lethal. Maher correctly observed that some Muslims are afraid to leave their religion and are even "afraid to speak out because [Islam]'s the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book." This spiritual blackmail is disgusting, but it belies the simplicity of treating religion only as a set of ideas. In other words, leaving Islam and saying that you are no longer a Muslim—that you no longer adhere to that set of ideas—is not easy for that religion. However, this caveat is not enough to substantiate Affleck, Kristal, and Steele's claims of bigotry against Maher and Harris.

Affleck himself admitted that we must criticize bad ideas, "of course we do!" Harris and Maher see Islam, as Harris put it, as "the mother lode of bad ideas" and criticize those ideas. But Affleck sees Harris and Maher as attacking Muslims. Harris and Maher are attacking Islam, the set of ideas which Muslims self-identify as subscribing to. Without doubt, there are internecine conflicts within Islam—arguments about which is the true Islam. But both sides recognized this. Harris laid out concentric circles of people who consider themselves Muslims with the ISIS–like extremists at the middle. And Kristal and Steele noted people and friends they know who are in Harris's outer circles. But again, Kristal and Steele's anecdotal evidence does not invalidate Maher and Harris's criticism of ideas: such as the idea that apostasy should be a capital crime. An idea that more than 3/4 of Egyptian Muslims agree with (that statistic actually embodies the differences among Muslims and the anecdotes raised).

Of course Islamophobia exists. A self-appointed vigilante killing a Sikh after mistaking him for a Muslim—he wanted to go out and "shoot some towelheads"—is an example of that fear running wild after 9/11. But criticizing the religion itself, pointing out its barbaric tenets, and explaining the penalties for apostasy are not examples of Islamophobia. What Maher and Harris were saying was not Islamophobic, they were simply speaking critical truths about a set of cruel, misogynistic ideas.

- See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/21513-what-ben-affleck-missed-in-the-islamophobia-debate-with-bill-maher-and-sam-harris#sthash.53QeJT85.KylQ0Dvb.dpuf

I agree with Andrew.

[m-lekktor]

23. excellent post!

I used to be a member and went to a Freedom From Religion gathering once one 4th of July weekend on some lake in Alabama, Lake Hypatia i believe it was called. I had a wonderful time, great people, interesting discussions.

[jobycom]

94. See, that post demonstrates exactly why it is racism in all it's sickened ugliness.

"Maher correctly observed that some Muslims are afraid to leave their religion and are even "afraid to speak out because 's the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.""

That's not true. That's a generalization based on outliers that groups all Muslims together under one single identity and paints them as either perpetrators or victims of irrational violence. That's racism. How else do you define racism?

Claiming a person has to convert to not be part of all the nasty ideas that their religion supposedly has is like saying a person has to become straight to be free of all the hatred of gays, or a person needs to pull up their pants and learn "proper English" to avoid hatred of black people.

A Muslim, like a Christian or Buddhist or atheist, can believe anything and still be Muslim. I know Muslims who think God is more of a metaphorical abstract than a real being. I know Muslims who don't even care if there is a God, who just go along with the religious practices around them because that's what their culture expects. Islam is not defined by belief alone, just like Christianity or atheism, etc. It is defined by culture, history, family, etc.

So hatred of Muslims, or to be more precise about what I'm saying, generalizations about Muslims based on assumed traits--as Maher did in the quote above--isn't about religion. It's not about belief. Muslims aren't united in what they believe, not even in their beliefs about God. So what are these generalized negative assumptions based on? Not belief, because there is no one set of beliefs which unite Muslims. So what unites them in Bill Maher's hatred? Culture, ethnic background, history... those are race. That's racism.

Repeating what I wrote in the OP, I'm not saying that disagreeing with Islam is Islamophobic. I'm not saying that condemning the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie is Islamophobic. I'm saying that Bill Maher's comment that Islam is like the mafia and will kill you if you say the wrong thing is Islamophobic, because it is an untrue generalization based on stereotypes of an entire people.

[PeaceNikki]

95. To compare RELIGION to sexual orientation is fucking disgusting.

Religion is a fucking CHOICE- whether you believe it or not. It is.

[jobycom]

98. Yes, it would be. Which is why I wouldn't do so.

Next you'll be yelling "You'd do it for Randolph Scott," I guess.

[PeaceNikki]

100. Yes, you did.

[jobycom]

104. Oh God almighty. Show me where, and explain how. nt

[phil89]

114. You don't know where

You just compared teligion to sexual orientation??

[jobycom]

123. I know I did not. And if you did, you'd have shown me.

She may have thought that this passage compared religion to being gay:

"Claiming a person has to convert to not be part of all the nasty ideas that their religion supposedly has is like saying a person has to become straight to be free of all the hatred of gays..."

But upon further reading, you can easily see that it does not. It compares one type of bigotry to another type, demonstrating how bigots always use a similar excuse: that a person can escape the bigotry by converting to X--black people can act more white, gay people can become straight, Latinos can learn English, Immigrants can give up their culture to become "American..."

[brooklynite]

14. What is the ethnic link between Saudis and Indonesians?

How about Moroccans and Afghan?

[scarletwoman]

30. Or how about between Iranians and Somalis?

I can't believe anyone can seriously argue that Islamophobia is racism. A form of bigotry, sure, but bigotry is not synonymous with racism. Racism is just one form of bigotry. Homophobia is also a form of bigotry, but it's not racism.

Words have to actually mean something if they are to be of any use at all.

[PeaceNikki]

32. I think the bigger point of contention is defining "bigotry" in this discussion.

Many seem to think any criticism of Islam is Islamaphobia and bigotry.

Many DUers accuse those critical of Islam of spreading RW rhetoric.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a ridiculous simplistic notion. And wrong.

As a strong supporter of women and a secular society, Republicans are my adversaries. Organized religion is as well. Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence - and injecting these horrible beliefs into governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does.

We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Pope Francis and the RCC and any and all other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.

[scarletwoman]

35. My concern is really just to do with defending the meaning of words.

Bigotry =/= racism. Homophobia is bigotry, it is not racism.

Islamophobia - if that is what someone means by unreasoning hatred of Islam - is bigotry, not racism.

As to whether any or all criticism of Islam = Islamophobia is a different argument. I certainly don't believe that it is. I don't believe that any religion should be exempt from criticism.

[Binkie The Clown]

36. Exactly! There are two kinds of people in the world.

Those who use words to mean anything they want them to.

(Oh, didn't I tell you? When I say "two" I mean "one".)

[TransitJohn]

64. Or African Americans (a large subset that are Moslem) and Kazakhs?

n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Why is it all the people who mount absurd defenses of religion always claim to be atheists?

Were your parents atheists? If not, does that mean that you were 'born into' their faith and then chucked it by choice? Can a person do that with race, be born to parents of one race and then just say 'I don't believe I'm white' and convert to being Asian?
If religion is inborn and not chosen, why do so many religions seek to convince people to make the choice to convert to their faith? Why are there missionaries?

[jobycom]

108. Is that a passive-aggressive ad hominem accusation?

Are you trying to claim I'm not atheist?

It's not about what a person can be. It's about what a person is. Are you saying that a Muslim who doesn't want to convert deserves to be hated for who they are?

[seveneyes]

19. Religion, as with fairy tales, should never be taken seriously

The tooth fairy has more factual backing than religious hokum.

[PowerToThePeople]

22. I initially rec'd this, but took it back

I am an equal opportunity organized religion hater.

[leftofcool]

25. +1

[leftofcool]

24. Islam is an ethnic group? I don't think so.

[hrmjustin]

29. Islamaphobia is bigotry pure and simple.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. This would be fine if all Muslims were Arab or Asian,

but they're not. I don't see Islamaphobia as racist, but it's for sure bigoted.

[bananas]

38. Great post! nt

[jobycom]

102. Thanks!

I literally needed that.

[CJCRANE]

40. It's very easy to make a category error when talking about any race, group or culture

whether it's white people, black people, christians, muslims, jewish people etc.

Some people confuse the specific with the general.

The Nazis do not represent all socialists, just as Isis does not represent all muslims, or the LRA all christians etc. etc.

[Quantess]

41. If you convert to Islam, do you also change your race?

Since your current "race" is atheist?

[Inkfreak]

42. No thanks. I know what racism is versus bigotry. (nt)

[cali]

43. and what about bigotry against Christians or Buddhists or Hindus?

And what constitutes bigotry against religion?

[B Calm]

44. +1

Now we're watching for the op head to explodes again.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. more to the point, criticism of islam is not the same as "islamophobia" and is not in itself racist

nor is it necessarily "anti-muslim". Can one incorporate criticism of islam into a racist ideology? Of course. However declaring all criticism of islam as racist is nonsense, and is generally done in order to avoid a discussion of the content of that criticism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. Probably, yes and no, I think.

"criticism of islam is not the same as "islamophobia" and is not in itself racist nor is it necessarily "anti-muslim"."

Whether or not all criticism of Islam is "islamophobia" is debatable - on balance I think you're right, but it's worth noting significant number of people essentially use the term "islamophobia" to refer to all but the mildest criticism of Islam.

It is certainly the case that not all criticism of Islam is racist.

I'm not sure how criticism of Islam can avoid being anti-muslim in some sense - yes, you can say "your religion is wrong, but that doesn't make you a bad person", but "your religion is wrong" is still a fairly fundamental attack on someone.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Using Islamophobia to describe any criticism of Islam is as dishonest

as calling such criticism racist and is done for the same reason: to shut down the discussion.

"your religion is wrong, but that doesn't make you a bad person" - how difficult a concept is that?

The catholic church is way fucking wrong about a lot of things - that in no way implies that all catholics are also wrong. However, catholics that agree with their church on women's rights and gay rights are just as wrong as their church. If they are offended by criticism of their church over those issues - too bad.

Why is it we get all confused here about this point when it comes to Islam?

If there are muslims who are going to get offended by pointing out that sharia law is an abominable throwback to 13th century norms, then they have a problem they share with their religion.

[PeaceNikki]

55. Yup.

[arcane1]

58. Perfectly said! I'm not a bigot for saying it's wrong to execute gay people.

The bigot is the one who thinks it's acceptable to do so. It would be amoral of me to be silent for fear of hurting the bigot's feelings.

Of course there is violence and sexism in Islam, just as there is violence and sexism in Christianity. However, the violence and sexism of the individual believer is in direct proportion to how much of their religion they ignore.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. Yes, that does imply that all catholics are also wrong.

It doesn't imply that all Catholics are also *bad*, but either the Catholic church is right about the fundamental nature of the universe, or all Catholics are wrong about something moderately significant.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. No it doesn't. Huge numbers of catholics simply disagree with their church's official positions. nt.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Even if it did, so what?

Up until the 1990s, most Americans, regardless of race, thought interracial marriage was wrong, up until that time, were they right because they were the majority? No, of course not, if most Catholics are against same sex marriage, does that make them right? No, but a couple of things, first, most Catholics in the United States aren't against same sex marriage, and second, the Church is, so there is a disagreement between laity and church, happens all the time. Mentioning that the Church, which funnels millions of dollars into organizations that try to preserve discrimination against LGBT people in all aspects of life, is wrong is pointing out a fact.

Oh, and, side note, if their Church is right about the fundamental nature of the universe, woe on all of us, such a cruel god they worship!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

72. Yes, that does imply that all catholics are also wrong.

It doesn't imply that all Catholics are also *bad*, but either the Catholic church is right about the fundamental nature of the universe, or all Catholics are wrong about something moderately significant.

Also, I'm not sure it's "dishonest" to use Islamophobia to describe all criticism of Islam, because I'm not convinced the word is sufficiently well-defined. There are two obvious possible responses to people who use "Islamophobia" to mean "hostility to Islam". One is to argue the semantics of the word, and claim that they're wrong. The other is to accept their definition for the duration of the conversation, but to then point out to them that by that definition not all forms of Islamophobia are wrong, and to try and distinguish between good and bad forms of Islamophobia (as they use the word). Both approaches have drawbacks, but the latter at least cuts out the discussion of semantics.

[jobycom]

83. Which is why I said that in the OP.

But your last comment needs to be flipped. People who claim Islamic hatred isn't racist are the ones trying to avoid a discussion of what constitutes racism and of why generalized cultural assumptions about 2 billion people are wrong.

Racism is about dehumanizing people based on a perceived collective trait (skin color, facial structure, language, or cultural/religious heritage.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. So is pointing that sharia law is an abomination "Islamic hatred"?

[William769]

46. And just so we are on the same page

Killing people for their sexuality is barbaric and crimes against humanity. Same goes for stoning women to death. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Iggo]

47. Bigotry against anything is bigotry.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. I hate fucking nazis/

[uppityperson]

61. how many nazis have you had sex with?

[Iggo]

81. Illinois Nazis especially.

[seveneyes]

49. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

Some bigotry claims have been mistaken for intolerance of blind obedience to the complete absence of reality. All fantasies have one thing in common - they are figments of imagination.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. No, attacking someone's ideas, even bigotedly, is not racism. N.T.

[arcane1]

52. Where would Muhammad Ali fit into this?

He's not Arab. So if I criticized something about Islam, I'm racist against Arabs but not Africans?

[Pooka Fey]

54. So let me get this straight, bigotry against Arab Christians is Islamophobia?

[jobycom]

101. What?

Where did that come from?

[RealityAdvocate]

56. All religion is equally ridiculous

[Adrahil]

143. How DARE you disrespect the FSM!

May your pasta NEVER be al dente!

[Warpy]

57. Islam is the dominant religion across all racial divides

just like Christianity is.

Being an anti Islamic nutcase is bigotry but it's not racism.

[leveymg]

59. Religious animus is a form of bigotry, not racism. Both are bad, but not the same.

All racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racists. Not logically congruent.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. If we are talking just a regional group of Muslims, maybe.

Attacks against Middle Eastern people are racist. if you're attacking just Middle Eastern Muslims, then yes you could mame the point that racism is at play here. But if your hatred and attacks is targeted toward all Muslims, then no it wouldn't racist because Muslim is not a race.

[Matrosov]

62. The progressive defense of Islam is getting absurd

Someone tell me why we get angry at the intolerant bullshit from Christians, yet criticism of Islam's intolerant bullshit is dismissed as intolerant itself to the point of now being labeled racist?

Let's move away from the simplistic 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset. Just because we have a problem with the Christian homophobia and misogynism and many Christians have a problem with Muslims doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the Islamic homophobia and misogynism.

Also, Indonesians and Saudi Arabians might be surprised to find out they are the same 'race.'

[PeaceNikki]

65. I've said damn near the same in the past here as well.

[Quantess]

69. Thank you. (no text)

[m-lekktor]

74. it's fucking INSANE. nt

[B Calm]

75. It's not liberal or progressive, it's just the stupid PC police.

[romanic]

76. Thank you.

There's a HUGE difference between criticizing the barbaric and fucked up views of radical Islam and saying "I hate all Muslims, fucking terrorists!". Calling out the problems within Islam is not "bigotry" or "Islamophobia" just like calling out the problems in Christianity is not "Christianphobia". Islam is a religion followed by over a billion, it's not some "protected and oppressed" religion just like Republicans make out Christianity to be; Islam doesn't need protection from rightful criticism.

[jobycom]

87. Tell me who is doing what you said in your post.

Wasn't me. I condemn intolerance from and of Christians and Muslims equally. I also condemn progressives when they are racist--which is shockingly often.

Let's move away from the simplistic mindset that the enemy exists. Let's move away from the mindset that someone with a religious belief is exactly the same as someone else with that same religious belief. Martin Luther King was not the same as Pat Robertson. Jimmy Carter is not the same as Jerry Falwell. They were all Christians, but all had greatly differing definition of Christianity. The same is true of Islam. There are wonderful people and horrific people, and nothing I'm saying is defending the horrific people.

All I'm saying is that when you say "Muslims are violent" or "Muslims are terrorists" or even "Muslims are sexist," you are being racist, because you are grouping all Muslims into one grouping and condemning them, and in those cases on false stereotypes.

[Throd]

90. Nobody here is saying that.

[PeaceNikki]

93. Nobody here says any of those things. People say Islam, the ideology, is violent and sexist

because, you know... it is. So is Christianity.

[jobycom]

97. You just said what you said no one was saying in the same post.

What is the ideology of Islam? There is not one. Islam doesn't have any central leader to interpret it, any more than any religion or atheism does. How can something that doesn't exist be violent or sexist? That's as idiotic as the Duck Dynasty guy saying atheists have no morals because the ideology of atheism denies any morality.

You mean Muslims are violent or sexist, because the only way Islam can exist is in the minds of Muslims.

[PeaceNikki]

99. Idiotic? OK, let's play that fucking game, chief. This whole OP is fucking idiotic.

[cwydro]

147. Thank you. nt

[Coventina]

91. Agree!!! And thank you! n/t

[Arugula Latte]

115. Agree totally, Matrosov.

[graegoyle]

70. Just want to join in the pile.

Islam is not a race. It is impossible to show racism towards Muslims, definitively. One can display racism by stating all Muslims are the same race. To me, the OP comes across as a racist statement.

[MrMickeysMom]

73. Imagine ...

there's no country, and no religion, too. John Lennon set that to words in the middle of being so fucked up in his personal life after a Beatle legal battle and final break up, while doing so many drugs. He was reaching out for something, and probably saw the need to have some faith, but not in it's historic representation… He finally found it in himself.

And, while we're thinking of how screwed up so many religions are, we need to have a dis-association with the religion itself and those fundamentally messed up by it. Take southern baptist and small mindedness… (please). But, there are so many of them in the church. Well… let's chuck the church, then.

Confusing, isn't it?

[DetlefK]

78. If you redefine "racism" as being about something else besides race...

Yes, then having prejudices against a particular religion is racism. Because we have to use the word "racism" because it's sticky and we would have to invent a new word.

What a hellish place this world would be if we wouldn't dumb down our scientific discourse.

[jobycom]

86. I didn't redefine race. Those who think it is about skin color are redefining it.

Here's Oxford: "Race 1.1 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group."

[Shoulders of Giants]

80. You're simply wrong.

Islam is a religion, like Christianity, based on a holy book full of anti women, anti gay, and even anti human nonsense. However, does that mean I believe all Muslims are anti women, anti gay, or anti human. Of course not. And to be fair, the Bible has as much wrong with it as well, but all Christians aren't anti women, anti gay, and anti human. The only real difference between most Christian and Muslim majority countries is that most Christian countries are secular. Meaning the values you see in USA (I'm excluding the deep south here), Canada, Australia, UK, etc are not "Christian Values" but secular values. If you want to see "Christian Values", go back to the dark ages. There is a reason its called the dark ages after all.

You said "You said "But saying "Muslims follow a violent, sexist (insert insult) religion" is racist, because it attacks all Muslims by implying they are united in a single negative mindset, and makes unsupportable generalizations about them based on their common grouping."

I absolutely believe that Islam, if followed correctly is violent and sexist, because the Koran commands you to be violent and sexist. Simply being able to read a book doesn't make me a racist. I also believe the same thing about Christianity, because I have read the Bible, and it is violent and sexist as well. By your logic, I am racist against white Americans, despite being a white American. However, this doesn't mean I believe all Muslims and Christians are violent and sexist. Secularism and lack of actually following the commands of the religions stops this behavior.


Right now, many Islam countries are still in their "dark ages" because they haven't embraced secularism enough (there are some exceptions though). This isn't about whose "holy book" is better. This is about putting away the holy book for the advancement of society. Even though the majority of the people in the west call themselves "Christian," they became secular without realizing it. I'll be honest and say I'd wish religion in general would just disappear. Not through force, but I'd wish people would just move away from it. However, I'm a realist and realize that won't happen anytime soon. So secularism is second best. And Islam needs secularism right now like no other religion.

You said " And when I learn that 2 billion people see the world differently than I do, I don't think "How can they be so wrong?I think, "What am I missing about what they are saying?"

This is little more than an appeal to majority fallacy. Absolutely 2 billion people can be wrong. To be fair, much of that 2 billion aren't actual believers. They pretend to be because of societal pressures or even force. Same with Christianity. Same with any religion in regards to the majority or family religion. Too few people realize this fact.

However, I believe the people who truly believe in Islam are simply wrong. I also believe Christians are wrong on their religion. Does that make any of them bad people? Of course not. They can still be intelligent on other matters and be decent people. Also, both Christians and Muslims can be secular. And it doesn't mean they are wrong on other items in their lives.

So therefore, it is possible to attack a religion without attacking the people. And none of this is racist. If you see anything I posted as racism, that's on you not me. Just because I believe a belief system is wrong that most people who follow are a different skin color than me follow, doesn't make me a racist. As you notice, I tend to believe belief systems followed by people of my skin color is wrong as well.

And for the record, simply posting quotes from experts is not a defense of your position. Experts can be wrong. You need to come to your own conclusions.

[jobycom]

109. That's simply racism.

"I absolutely believe that Islam, if followed correctly is violent and sexist, because the Koran commands you to be violent and sexist."

Prove that, and maybe I'll agree your post isn't racist.

[Arugula Latte]

117. There are a lot of passages in the Koran commanding that Muslims kill infidels.

(The Bible is totally fucked-up and violent, too, but the subject now is Islam)

Here are a few:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing..."

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

[jobycom]

121. None of those verses command Muslims to kill infidels. Care to learn how language is manipulated?

Each of those is taken from their context. During the early years of Islam, the other Arabs were trying to kill the early Muslims, attacking them in their homes and on the roads. These were each passages telling Muhammad and his immediate followers how to fight the people who were actively trying to kill them. They were not meant to be instructions to future Muslims as to how to deal with non-believers (the word we usually translate as "infidel" is actually "idolater," which refers to a specific group of Arabs).

It's a common western mistake to quote a passage of the Qur'an as though it stands on its own, like a passage of the I Ching. We get that from European tradition, because for a thousand years during the Middle Ages the only book most Christians ever saw was the Bible. After a couple of hundred years, everyone had heard the Bible a million times over, so they started trying to finnd new ways to read it. They would read it like a book of fortune cookies, with each verse being a stand-alone as well as part of the whole context. Islam was always a literate culture, and the Qur'an isn't read like that. So, with a few horrific examples, most Muslims don't see those passages as a command to kill anyone. They are historical passages to demonstrate what the early Muslims had to overcome.

For instance, here's the first one it's context.

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."

The passage is telling the Muslims in Medina that when they are attacked by the "idolators" from Mecca, it is ok for them to fight back, but within limits. And if they stop attacking, the Muslims were ordered to stop fighting them.

Here's the part every liberal should understand, especially after decades of Noam Chomsky. The religion of Islam is not ordering anyone to attack us. The reason Muslims in the Middle East attack us is because we are oppressing them. We are overthrowing their democracies, stealing their wealth, terrorizing their kids, locking them up in prison camps, torturing them to death, and not even apologizing when we find them innocent. Chris Kyle said that shooting them was like shooting animals, and there was actually debate in this country over whether that was justifiable. Read up on the history of Iran, or Palestine, or Saudi Arabia.

We are hated by many factions, and those factions attack us in any way they can, not because their religion tells them we are infidels, but because we are colonial monsters who are destroying their families, countries, lives, resources, and you name it.

So of course OUR leaders don't want you to know that, and they trust that your Arabic is weak, so they make it sound like Muslims are attacking us because of their religion. The religion may be the central part of their distinction from us, at least in the Middle East, but it is not the reason they are attacking us. But, when the US believes it is, that makes it easier for the Bushes and Cheneys of the world to trick our nation into attacking them.

You remember how it went--Iraqis and Afghanis deserved to be killed because they were of the same religion as the people who attacked us on 9-11? Only, the religion isn't why they attacked us. That was just the way BushCo got the US to support our attacks on whoever he wanted to attack.

So, yeah, that's racism, that's what we've been convinced to believe, and it has worked so well that even on a liberal web site the majority of people fight when they hear a different opinion. Just as the US citizens were taught to hate Cubans, Socialists, Communists, Russians, Germans and Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, African slaves, Indigenous Peoples on this continent. And every generation says "We aren't racists, we are basing our hatred on purely logical reasons."

It's how this country maintains its military.

[Shoulders of Giants]

125. The Koran is supposed to be the word of God.

Sorry but saying that the violent verses in the Koran (nevermind the terrible anti women stuff in the Koran see here http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html ) just applied to the times doesn't fly with me. The Koran is supposed to be the word of God, and therefore, Allah is advocating violence, even if only for a short period of time. He is also advocating sexism against women. That means he is at best, a reformed violent deity (but not a reformed sexist deity because those verses have never been rescinded). This is similar to the arguments in the OT, that God only meant the Jews at the time to engage in those barbaric acts during that time period. Well, its still wrong that God requested these in the first place, and therefore God isn't pure and perfect, if he existed. Its like people want to give God perfect morality, but then make his morality relevant to the times. All the Abrahamic faiths commit this fallacy. This is having your cake and eating it too. By not being religious, I don't have to worry about this problem.


If you have a problem with the phrase infidel, make it "disbeliever" then, which the Koran makes sure to let know will have "doom" multiple times. It doesn't make a difference. Neither terms are accurate anyways, because neither or the original Arabic.

I know you are trying to bring context in to matter, but I don't have to worry about that, because I don't live my life worrying about what centuries old imaginary deities think (I include the God of the Bible in this list as well, so I'm not singling out Muslims). In general modern morality is superior to holy books.

And for the record, even in the context you posted, it still says to convert non Muslims to Islam "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". Other translations of the book though are more clear in saying to forcibly convert non Muslims to Islam. This is wrong, even if in the context is says to stop after "hostilities are over." This essentially makes war religious war, which most modern societies should try to move away from. To be fair, most religions have something similar, and this is why I'm not into religion.




For the record, I didn't support the Iraq War, I support leaving Afghanistan, and I support drastically reducing the military. Its possible to have these opinions, and not think military force is the answer. I think secularism and education are the answers. And I agree that we have oppressed Muslim societies. But that doesn't make the religion good. I've read the entire Koran before, and I will admit you can probably quote it better than I can. However, I remember it being a never ending barrage of threats of hell for the disbelievers, intolerance towards women and gay people, and occasional calls to violence. You can cherry pick out the good parts, but you can't deny that stuff isn't in it. To be fair, its in the Bible as well, which is why I'm not a Christian.


I'd also like to point out I became an atheist at age 12. I started my religious criticism by criticizing my former religion, Christianity. I didn't even learn the basic points of Islam until much older. It wasn't until I read the Koran, and found out what was really in it, (And also learned about the Prophet Mohammad) that I started my dislike of Islam. And I can dislike the religion without hating the people, or supporting the oppressive policies against the people. I don't support the oppressive policies keeping people in poverty in the American South (even if they vote for these policies against their own interests) for example, despite the huge amount of fundamentalism there. But that doesn't mean I like the religion of Christianity though.

[Shoulders of Giants]

124. See post

I absolutely believe that Christianity, if followed correctly is violent and sexist, because the Bible commands you to be violent and sexist.


Is this a racist sentence, because I believe this as well. As for sexism, people have already done the research for me.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html


Here' a list of plenty of versus that if a Republican politician spouted similar opinions, you'd think they were worse than David Duke


And here is all the intolerance of other religions (including violence) in the Koran. Including the phrase "Doom to the disbeliever" over and over gain.


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html


Sorry but simply being able to read a book doesn't make me racism. Religion != race. And I will criticize them all.

[jobycom]

112. And a longer response...

You say Islam is in their "dark ages" because they haven't embraced secularism, which implies there is something in their religion that keeps them from advancing. Yet I'm sure you know that for many centuries Islamic cultures led the world in science, math, medicine, poetry, architecture, etc. How can that be if their lack of secularism prevents progress?

The reason so many countries that practice Islam are in such terrible economic shape is because the US and the UK have done everything in our powers to make them so. We have overthrown democracies. We have propped up bloody, violent dictatorships and trained the secret police in these dictatorships to torture and murder political dissent out of existence, and we have used military might to squash the most secular governments in the region (Iraq, for instance). We have stolen the resources from their ground that could have enriched them. As with slavery in the US, blaming the victims of horrific atrocities for their own victimization is sick.

We use a religious filter when we talk about the Middle East. We see Saudi Arabia as backward because of their religion, when in fact their religion is more of a creation of their government to keep the people in check. When we see something we don't like from those countries we say "Oh, that's because of Islam."

A clear example is honor killings. Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. They happen in Christian countries, too. They are a result of a patriarchal culture, and are firmly condemned by every Muslim government, and denounced by Muslim leaders. But when we hear of one, we immediately blame Islam. In the US, 3 women a day are murdered by domestic partners, usually because the women didn't obey the man. These killings usually follow a clear, identifiable pattern of abuse that our legal system does nothing to interrupt. Why don't we blame democracy for that? We don't we blame secularism? For that matter, we don't even blame Christianity, though most often the killers are Christians. We don't blame democracy or secularism because the root of the problem lies elsewhere. And that's true of the supposed sins of Islam, as well.

[Shoulders of Giants]

128. Yes religion has kept their society from advancing.

When women are murdered for going to school, that is hauling progress. Yes, I agree everything that USa has done hasn't helped. And yes, there can be scientific progress, even in Dark ages. There was in Christian Europe for example. But imagine how much further the progress could be without religion.


What is the most religious area of the western world? The American South. What area of the Western World is least advanced? The American South. See, I am not singling out Islam. Any religion, when forced on people, can hault progress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. Anne Frank K&R

[Orsino]

113. Perhaps not, but close enough in my book.

Whatever it is is just as filthy.

[Arugula Latte]

116. So, by this logic, bigotry against Republicans is anti-white racism

Not buying it.

I am able to distinguish between religious mythologies/belief systems and groups of people.

I don't have to respect the belief system of Islam or any of the nonsensical Abrahamic religions. I think it's patently ridiculous to continue to buy into these silly stories from a primitive age and believe they are "true."

Do I hate all Christians, Muslims, and Jews? Of course not!

[truebrit71]

118. Nope. You have a choice about your religion. You don't about your race.

N/T

[Marrah_G]

120. You can dislike a religion or even hate a religion without disliking/hating it's followers

I can think religion X is a dangerous or absurd worldview without thinking all of it's practitioners are dangerous or absurd. To think that we have to respect all religions is a bit bizarre and is very different from discriminating against their followers.

[jobycom]

122. Yes, of course you can. As I said in the OP. But hatred of Muslims based on stereotypes of religion

is racist.

And with 2 billion Muslims, there are no generalizations you can make that would apply to all of them, so saying you think a religion that large has an absurd world view (which isn't what you said, I know; I'm just using your comment about "religion X&quot is to make a grand generalization about the religion that is probably going to be wrong. Saying it is a religion of violence, of peace, of sexism, of feminism, of creationists, of scientists, or whatever, is saying something that isn't true of many. It's like saying all Americans love John Wayne and guns.

Islam is a religion of 2 billion ideas and world views. Summarizing it summarizes its followers, and that's when it starts sounding like racism.

[guillaumeb]

127. really well said.

The post and your responses. And your summary:
Islam is a religion of 2 billion ideas and world views. Summarizing it summarizes its followers, and that's when it starts sounding like racism.

Could not agree more. An excellent response to any statement that attempts to categorize any group of people and blame the entire group for individual actions.

[Humanist_Activist]

134. That makes absolutely no sense, if I went even against an even more hierarchical religion...

for example, Catholicism, and said that Catechism is homophobic and sexist, am I claiming all Catholics are homophobic and sexist?


Islam is a religion, a combination of a common set of ideas, beliefs, rituals, etc. There are two main branches and many smaller branches, they all share some commonalities, but some variety as well. They all, in general, share the same holy book, and it is full of terrible ideas.

Same can be said of Judaism and Christianity as well. This doesn't generalize followers because most followers of all these religions are better than their religions.

[guillaumeb]

138. I am not and do not accuse you personally of generalization here.

But I have read many posts that start from the premise that any or all religions are suspect, or full of terrible ideas. I have read other posts that categorize believers as uninformed, or backward, or in denial of "self-evident truth".

I feel that any judgment by 21st Century of BCE or early CE religious texts starts from a false premise of comparing world attitudes/knowledge from 1300 or more years ago with 21st Century attitudes/knowledge. It is easy to deride a Bronze Age creation story as scientifically primitive, or scientifically unprovable, when speaking from 2015.

The US Constitution had some bad ideas, revolving around who had rights and other issues. Do you then condemn the writers of the Constitution?

[Humanist_Activist]

139. Yes I do, particularly as hypocrites, many of them, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington..

even recognized their own hypocrisy in advocating for the rights of man while keeping some men in bondage.

We have every right to judge and criticize the primitive morality, beliefs and practices of past people, its how we advance, its how we fight for a society that is truly egalitarian, by recognizing that past societies, past beliefs, and past practices were wrong, period.

This is even more important when it comes to religions whose text and traditions date back to these primitive times, too many people in the world today think these books, traditions, writings, etc. are an example to be followed, that is frightening.

ON EDIT: In addition, many religious books and traditions are claimed to have come from a divine source, which is supposed to not be subject to the tribal, parochial society the religion sprang from. This gives many bad ideas a cover of divine authority, hence one of the reasons for many of the social conflicts present today in the United States and the world.

[guillaumeb]

140. good for your consistency!

Many are not so consistent on the US founders.

I agree that we can compare earlier morality, beliefs, and practices, but that should be a social judgment rather than a judgment of individuals in that society.

As to early religions and creation myths, I feel that too many people assume that the creation myths are identically or equally valid as science. As to behavior justified by religious beliefs, people often seem to interpret their holy books in a way that justifies what they are going to do. But the same can be said for varying interpretations of what the Constitution "means", or what a specific law means.

[Humanist_Activist]

141. First off, most people develop morality independent of their holy books, if they didn't, we would...

be a society that still holds onto slaves, keeps our wives as property, beats our children to within an inch of their life, etc.

What most religious people do is precisely what you say, they interpret their holy books to be acceptable for their morality. What many of them refuse to consider is that their interpretation is just as correct as the one from someone who comes to different conclusions. The lack of consistency in the Bible and Quran, for example, leads to such conflicts. Both books justify some of the worst shit imaginable, horrific torture, killing of everyone, including infants, due to a variety of offenses, from violating Sabbaths to apostasy. But they also contain stuff like "Treat others like you want to be treated" and "love thy neighbor", so there's a little bit of everything for everyone.

This wouldn't be an issue, normally, if people didn't treat these books with reverence, if they were treated like Homer's Epics, or other ancient writings, I wouldn't even bother criticizing the contents of either book, but believers, they claim their morality came from these books, I've never seen them demonstrate how with any consistency.

[guillaumeb]

142. I would include the word ethics as well as morality.

I feel that most people truly feel that they behave in an ethical manner. They might say that their ethics/morals are based on a particular book or philosophy, but, in my opinion, behavior generally seems to revolve around perceived self-interest.

And yes, there is a lack of consistency in most holy books, but in Judaism and Christianity that arises from the fact that the books are composed of many individual books written over a span of many centuries. Plus the books were copied and recopied, often by illiterate copyists who "drew" what they saw.

I also feel that people often develop morality based on the society in which they live. What is considered moral behavior in one country may not be so considered in another country.

And all of the above applies in my opinion to political holy texts as well.

[Humanist_Activist]

144. True, I developed my ethics based on simple things like human rights and fairness...

I also strongly believe that neither ethics nor morality should be set in stone, they need to be pliable to deal with new discoveries and new ideas that can then be applied to them. I find science to be helpful here.

To give an example, new research into animal cognition and animal emotions is helping us create supporting evidence for an actual animal rights movement, even recognition of limited rights that are almost equal to human rights in at least some primate species. Even more interesting, apparently many animals, including primates, elephants, dogs, dolphins, corvids, etc. have a sense of fairness, altruism, selfishness, etc. In other words, it seems that, once a certain intelligence level is reached, morality can develop, and perhaps even complex ethical systems exist in the societies of these animals right now, and we simply haven't recognized them yet.

I do find some trends disturbing though, for example, levels of religiosity(Christianity, mostly) in the United States has a positive correlation with support for torture.

Now, its possible that Christianity just attracts those who like the idea of bad people being tortured, perhaps through the idea of Hell, or it could be reverse, Christianity could make torture more palpable to its believers because of them worshiping a "just" god who also tortures. To be honest, I don't know what influences what in this situation.

[guillaumeb]

148. Interesting comments.

I absolutely agree as to animal cognition, especially in higher primates. Chimps who can sign are demonstrating a high level of cognition because they are engaging in abstract behavior. Plus they use tools, another sign of intelligence.

As to morality and ethics in animals, I am not sure. Higher level animals such as chimps, the great apes, dolphins, and humans develop slowly. We need more time to learn, unlike lizards and reptiles that are born with everything they need to immediately exist apart from a family unit.
When we talk about morals are we really simply describing how a social animal MUST behave in order to insure a viable social unit? If so, "Thou shalt not kill" really translates to a prohibition against killing members of your group, which behavior is necessary if the group is to survive.

I would appreciate if you have a link for the torture/religion trend.

[Humanist_Activist]

149. Here's the poll...

http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/

Its between Christians and all Non-Christians.

Also, if you have netflix, there's a series of ted talks there talking about animal cognition and development of morality.

[guillaumeb]

151. thank you. I will read it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. Since everybody else is throwing in their 2 cents, why not...

I disagree that animosity towards any religion and its followers can be definitively laid at the feet of 'racism' IF that religion allows converts of other ethnicities or cultures.

There are plenty of white guys who've converted to Islam.

So I think you have to examine incidents on a case by case basis to determine whether racism is involved in any particular incident against Muslims; I don't think it's 'automatic'.

[LWolf]

135. Neither race nor ethnicity

are religions. Islam is a religion.

That's religious bigotry, not racism.

[DirkGently]

136. Wouldn't "intersects with racism" be just as easy to say and more accurate?

There's no getting away from the fact that Islam and the various ethnic / national identities it comprises are not the same. As people have pointed out, Muslim traditions exist in Africa, Indonesia, Russia, India, Europe, etc. Conversely, people of those ethnic / national identities are also Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc.

Surely your typical knuckle-dragging American hater of Islam is mostly thinking of Arabs, but their opinions don't control reality. Heck, most of them think Sikhs are Muslims too, because they can't think past "foreign-looking headgear."

What's the motive to conflate religion and ethnicity here? Is it just to call anti-Islamic bigots "racists" instead of "religious bigots?"

Why?

Why not just call things what they are, instead of trying to cram one kind of malevolent idiocy into another?

Anti-islamic sentiment is religious bigotry. It's a similar mindset to racism, and it intersects with racist views of Arabs and probably Indians. None of that is good, or even any better than the other -- but there's not need to oversimplify.

[Humanist_Activist]

137. The Quran is a book full of violence, excuses for violence, sexism, homophobia...

etc. Is pointing this out somehow "racist"? If so, I'll gladly take the title, I'm also "racist" against Christians as well.

[pnwmom]

145. And bigotry, even "religious" bigotry, against women is misogyny. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

146. Why the quotation marks? N.T.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

150. I do not love, relish nor respect people who use their religion as a club

Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise.

I think you are extremely naive to believe religious extremists would give one fuck about whether you're trying to see their point or not.