Does Islamophobia change the game?

[Tom Sawyer]

I think this attitude is a bit condescending to the public. We all have to grow up and put our big pants on. We have to continue to stress the difference between criticizing ideas and criticizing people until they get it. Because frankly, there are too many ideas out there that NEED to be critically examined, criticized, satirized and openly mocked if necessary because they're very dangerous ideas. No idea should be safe from this.

Exactly. And we will beat the living shit out of any asshole who dares to criticize or oppose that viewpoint.

 

[Underseer]

After Chapel Hill, is defending Muslims now more important than debunking Islam?

People are confusing the arguments against Islam as indictments against Muslims. It's not hard to see the reason. When you say members of a group are doing and have done horrible things for some time... and your neighbor belongs to that grouping, it's easy to be angry at that person, conscious or not so consciously.

Sure, there's a difference, but that's more for eggheads and experts than for the populace. It's similar to "Hate the sin not the sinner". Theologians understand it, but the hoi polloi does not. And we're all hoi polloi at some point. We all harbor impulses we hide to even our own selves, we all have secret longings and grudges we can easily dish out to others.

"Do not hate" cannot be stressed enough. Or can it?

The Islamophobia coming out of the right is strategically stupid.

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

 

[Togo]

After Chapel Hill, is defending Muslims now more important than debunking Islam?

People are confusing the arguments against Islam as indictments against Muslims. It's not hard to see the reason. When you say members of a group are doing and have done horrible things for some time... and your neighbor belongs to that grouping, it's easy to be angry at that person, conscious or not so consciously.

Sure, there's a difference, but that's more for eggheads and experts than for the populace. It's similar to "Hate the sin not the sinner". Theologians understand it, but the hoi polloi does not. And we're all hoi polloi at some point. We all harbor impulses we hide to even our own selves, we all have secret longings and grudges we can easily dish out to others.

"Do not hate" cannot be stressed enough. Or can it?

The Islamophobia coming out of the right is strategically stupid.

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

No, it also helps the radical right. If you put the wedge between the radicals and the moderates, then you call radical religious-based fanaticism itself into question, and that's not what the radical right wants at all...

 

[Perspicuo]

After Chapel Hill, is defending Muslims now more important than debunking Islam?

People are confusing the arguments against Islam as indictments against Muslims. It's not hard to see the reason. When you say members of a group are doing and have done horrible things for some time... and your neighbor belongs to that grouping, it's easy to be angry at that person, conscious or not so consciously.

Sure, there's a difference, but that's more for eggheads and experts than for the populace. It's similar to "Hate the sin not the sinner". Theologians understand it, but the hoi polloi does not. And we're all hoi polloi at some point. We all harbor impulses we hide to even our own selves, we all have secret longings and grudges we can easily dish out to others.

"Do not hate" cannot be stressed enough. Or can it?

I think this attitude is a bit condescending to the public. We all have to grow up and put our big pants on. We have to continue to stress the difference between criticizing ideas and criticizing people until they get it. Because frankly, there are too many ideas out there that NEED to be critically examined, criticized, satirized and openly mocked if necessary because they're very dangerous ideas. No idea should be safe from this.

That's not condescending. That's me on lukewarm setting. In reality consider the word "rabble", that's my opinion of the masses. And I have evidence, your honor.

Anyway, you dismiss what I say by saying "We all have to grow up and put our big pants on", as if all you had to do is just say your phrase and everyone is suddenly "big". Well, no. Never in history has that happened and it won't happen now just becaused we are blessed by having you among us.

In the meantime we have to tiptoe through the china store, weighing our words very carefully, lest the rabble go amok. And they do--it's in every tome on the history shelf and on the news right this very moment.

The Islamophobia coming out of the right is strategically stupid.

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

Startegically? You attribute too much intelligence to them.

And the Islamicists don't want any wedge between Muslims in general and themselves. They want to recruit them all. People like Obama want to prevent that by creating that wedge. I think low of the masses, but I still believe that a majority of Muslims is reasonable enough to want food on their plates and a future for their children.

The problem up to now, in Palestine for instance, is that the folk mythology, this reservoir of cultural concepts they have been bequeathed, has this mad-dog jihad warrior that never loses because Allah is on his side... they must wake up from that dream. "In war, the moral element and public opinion are half the battle."-Napoléon Bonaparte

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

Not everyone else. Too many want to pretend that a wedge isn't needed in the first place.

 

[Unbeatable]

The Islamophobia coming out of the right is strategically stupid.

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

No, it helps authoritarians on both sides.

 

[arkirk]

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

Not everyone else. Too many want to pretend that a wedge isn't needed in the first place.

So then, you are a person who is interested in keeping a wedge between people? That idea really violates the notion of secular civil society itself. These wedges are the source of the violence practiced in behalf of these erroneous belief systems. I feel, the problem many atheists find themselves coping with here is one of being forced into a conflict in which atheists have no part to play...except as peace maker. Just like persistent boiler room salesmen press you to buy this and that, the religious sales pitch always adds its religious authority to any peace the religious sell. Inherent in the dogmas of ALL RELIGIONS is a wedge clearly separating the adherents of one from the adherents of the other...in terms of life on earth and beyond. This is obvious in all monotheistic religions. That is the point Gore Vidal was constantly making.

IMO, an atheist should not adopt any position that defends ANY RELIGION and always recommend the abandonment of religion only in favor of secular humanist values. We should not attempt to be blind to the fact that these religions ALL contain,within their dogmas, tenets that recommend violence against people called infidels. They all contain tenets that recommend violence against ATHEISTS. In light of this fact, the only religious people an atheist can trust are those who agree to hold in abeyance these tenets in civil exchanges with non believers or believers in other religions. That in fact involves a partial abandonment of the religion in question (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Satanist, Hindu, etc.) in all exchanges with non believers.

In the eighties, I was deeply involved in the environmental movement, organizing groups for environmental purposes in communities that were nearly 100% Christian. We were succesful in stopping a half dozen rail dumps in the desert, three water district annexations, four big strip mine projects, a couple of military operations, and involved in the finalization of Joshua Tree National Park. We did this without ever appealing to religion of any kind, though our groups had high level leadership that in some cases were fundamentalist Christians. Secular political action IS POSSIBLE. It is a matter of keeping your eye on the ball.

I will never lift a finger to defend any form of Monotheistic or theistic religion. So now comes a guy who claims he is an atheist and he blows away three muslims. Having led hundreds of meetings, I have recited the pledge of allegiance about that many times and never used the words "under god." It is possible to work with these people with the different beliefs despite their beliefs and never support those beliefs. It is possible for these people to be allies with you and indeed with others, but if you look closely it is only because they hold the violent tenets of their creed in abeyance, so it would be fair to say they are not actually practicing their whole religion when they work with those outside their religion. The same cannot be said for atheists and agnostics. For fifteen years, I was a very active political animal and this experience made it clear to me it is possible to deal with real issues and avoid that wedge Loren says is needed.

 

[ronburgundy]

Agreed, with some qualification. The Jewish God is certainly as imperialistic, authoritarian, and "kill the outsiders" as any. However, Jews have gotten their asses kicked for much of history and have not had the concentrated power to expand their rule. Controlling their "own flock" is the only realistic option open to them, but they do that with a heavy, authoritarian, intolerant, and anti-liberty fist. And doing so is no more forgivable than controlling "others", because the fact is that everyone who isn't you is an "other" whom it is immoral to control and rob them of their liberty. IOW, as Israel shows (the only place where believing Jews dominate government) Judaism pushes for theocracy and is as incompatible with the values of liberty, reason, and equality as other Abrahamic monotheisms.

But unless I am mistaken, Israel is officially secular democracy, not a theocratic dictatorship.

That means as much as me officially declaring that I am a unicorn. You are pairing secularism and democracy and theocracy and dictatorships as they are inherently tethered. Theocratic democracy is quite possible, especially in a country founded upon the idea of creating a "homeland" for a people defined by affiliation with a particular religion. Whatever nonsense people want to claim, Zionism is fundamentally a religious idea and movement and the Israeli government was founded upon it. They started at 87% Jewish in 1949, and although their worldwide representation should have led that % to drastically reduce, they have managed to still keep it close to 80% Jewish with immigration laws that are as non-secular and religiously discriminatory as they come. And the majority of the Jews are between "traditional" (which is still quite conservative and religious) to ultra-orthodox.

The 1992 Basic Laws of Israeal begin with the declaration that "The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law tile values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Their flag is a key Jewish symbol on what is made to look like a prayer shawl. The official presidential seal of the government and their president is a Menorah.
Israeli laws are rife with religious discrimination and inequality, and granting control to religious leaders over what should be secular matters.

And life in Israel is nowhere near as draconian as places where sharia is law. I think there is plenty of reason to oppose monotheism, but painting them all as equally blameworthy in how they treat themselves and the world is not useful or accurate, in my opinion.

Comparing religions versus nations is not the same thing. Different States are controlled by religion to different degrees, depending upon many historical and political contingencies. Discussions and debates about the formation of a Jewish State began back in the late 1800's, and it is clear that the more actually religious Jewish sects rejected Enlightenment ideas and pushed and continue to push for a far more aggressively theocratic state than exists today. It is the non-religious ethnic Jews along with the secular western nations that made Israel possible whom are responsible for pushing back constantly on those religious forces of authoritarian intolerance, anti-liberty, and inequality. I brought up Israel as an example of how even Judaism restrained by non-religious forces pushes a society toward anti-enlightenment values. But I don't equivocate Israel as being "just as bad" as most Arab nations, but that is despite what religious Jews want, and the credit goes to secular forces keeping them in check, which does not exist in most Arab nations.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That in fact involves a partial abandonment of the religion in question...

Based on how conflicting the messages in the holy books of the various religions can be, it seems that any practice of religion necessitates "partial abandonment of the religion". Most religious observers cherry pick their holy books, acting primarily on cultural, not religious, guidelines.

The entire conversation about religion and the devoutness of the followers of religion seems to be predicated on the idea that a literal following of holy books is the "most correct" way of practicing one's religion. And it's not even universal what these holy books "literally" mean, as they are often allegorical and highly contextual.

Why can't an understanding of the allegorical nature of the holy books be considered the more devout approach and the ritualistic, self-serving, dogmatic, literal approach to one's holy books be considered less devout? It gives the fundamentalists more power by calling them "fundamental". Why can't we consider "moderates" to be more religious than "extremists"?

 

[Underseer]

The Islamophobia coming out of the right is strategically stupid.

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

No, it also helps the radical right. If you put the wedge between the radicals and the moderates, then you call radical religious-based fanaticism itself into question, and that's not what the radical right wants at all...

I don't think that's the primary motivation for the rhetoric coming from the right.

Stoking the fires of fear is always good for fund-raising regardless of who the boogeyman is. This is the same reason the radical Islamists want the wedge there: it amplifies the number of people they can gather money from, and when the inevitable backlash for terrorist acts come, they can stoke the fires of fear that comes from the backlash, and use that fear for both recruitment and fund-raising. Further, it allows radicals on both sides to point at the moderates and accuse them of being "with" the other side, which serves to further radicalize their own side.

 

[Underseer]

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

Not everyone else. Too many want to pretend that a wedge isn't needed in the first place.

That doesn't excuse anything.

If we can drive the wedge between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam, we drastically cut the pool of people willing to provide them with recruits and money. We also put moderate Muslims in a position to pull followers away from the radicals.

If we plant the wedge between all of Islam and all non-Muslims, then the radicals can accuse the moderates of being "with the evil non-Muslims" and radicalize the moderates.

Planting the wedge where you want it helps the radical Islamists more than it helps us. Right now, ISIS is slaughtering Muslims in incredible numbers. They've brought back the practice of accusing people with certain beliefs of "apostasy" and executing them (sometimes in mass crucifixion). The cage-burning left a lot of the Muslim world enraged. This is an ideal time to plant a wedge between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam, and you are doing everything in your power to prevent that, just because you consume a lot of right wing propaganda and are too gullible to think for yourself or think things through.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not everyone else. Too many want to pretend that a wedge isn't needed in the first place.

So then, you are a person who is interested in keeping a wedge between people? That idea really violates the notion of secular civil society itself. These wedges are the source of the violence practiced in behalf of these erroneous belief systems. I feel, the problem many atheists find themselves coping with here is one of being forced into a conflict in which atheists have no part to play...except as peace maker. Just like persistent boiler room salesmen press you to buy this and that, the religious sales pitch always adds its religious authority to any peace the religious sell. Inherent in the dogmas of ALL RELIGIONS is a wedge clearly separating the adherents of one from the adherents of the other...in terms of life on earth and beyond. This is obvious in all monotheistic religions. That is the point Gore Vidal was constantly making.

IMO, an atheist should not adopt any position that defends ANY RELIGION and always recommend the abandonment of religion only in favor of secular humanist values. We should not attempt to be blind to the fact that these religions ALL contain,within their dogmas, tenets that recommend violence against people called infidels. They all contain tenets that recommend violence against ATHEISTS. In light of this fact, the only religious people an atheist can trust are those who agree to hold in abeyance these tenets in civil exchanges with non believers or believers in other religions. That in fact involves a partial abandonment of the religion in question (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Satanist, Hindu, etc.) in all exchanges with non believers.

In the eighties, I was deeply involved in the environmental movement, organizing groups for environmental purposes in communities that were nearly 100% Christian. We were succesful in stopping a half dozen rail dumps in the desert, three water district annexations, four big strip mine projects, a couple of military operations, and involved in the finalization of Joshua Tree National Park. We did this without ever appealing to religion of any kind, though our groups had high level leadership that in some cases were fundamentalist Christians. Secular political action IS POSSIBLE. It is a matter of keeping your eye on the ball.

I will never lift a finger to defend any form of Monotheistic or theistic religion. So now comes a guy who claims he is an atheist and he blows away three muslims. Having led hundreds of meetings, I have recited the pledge of allegiance about that many times and never used the words "under god." It is possible to work with these people with the different beliefs despite their beliefs and never support those beliefs. It is possible for these people to be allies with you and indeed with others, but if you look closely it is only because they hold the violent tenets of their creed in abeyance, so it would be fair to say they are not actually practicing their whole religion when they work with those outside their religion. The same cannot be said for atheists and agnostics. For fifteen years, I was a very active political animal and this experience made it clear to me it is possible to deal with real issues and avoid that wedge Loren says is needed.

You're obviously one of the "too many" that I was referring to. Your position amounts to supporting terrorism.

 

[Warpoet]

You're obviously one of the "too many" that I was referring to. Your position amounts to supporting terrorism.

Actually, he made a very thoughtful and interesting post. And you didn't refute any of it.

That your only response is to accuse him of supporting terrorism says an awful lot about your intellectual honesty and credibility.

Not that there's a whole lot of doubt about the status of either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The right wants to drive the wedge between Islam and everyone else, which is exactly where the radical Islamists want the wedge. Everyone else in the western world wants that wedge driven between the radical Islamists and the rest of Islam. Putting the wedge where the Islamists want it only helps the Islamists.

Not everyone else. Too many want to pretend that a wedge isn't needed in the first place.

Those would be the people that think all of Islam is evil.

 

[PyramidHead]

You're obviously one of the "too many" that I was referring to. Your position amounts to supporting terrorism.

Actually, he made a very thoughtful and interesting post. And you didn't refute any of it.

That your only response is to accuse him of supporting terrorism says an awful lot about your intellectual honesty and credibility.

Not that there's a whole lot of doubt about the status of either.

In fact, Loren's response is a perfect illustration of my point about lack of curiosity.

 

[Unbeatable]

In fact, Loren's response is a perfect illustration of my point about lack of curiosity.

Well, this has become a PD thread. PD is a hotbed of ingroups that do not reward curiosity. It seems to me that forum is mostly a collection of people with the attitude "I already have everything figured out. All that's left is to convince the people who disagree with me that I'm right and they're wrong, or at least discredit them so that everybody else knows that I'm right and they're wrong".