Islamophobia

[Undesired Walrus]

What exactly is Islamophobia these days? I see the word getting tossed around a lot since 9/11, but what is the definition?

If, for example, a politician says on a round table discussion on CNN that the Quran is a terrible piece of literature and anyone who believes it is the best book ever written is seriously deluding themselves, is that classified as Islamophobia?

[uk_dave]

If, for example, a politician says on a round table discussion on CNN that the Quran is a terrible piece of literature and anyone who believes it is the best book ever written is seriously deluding themselves, is that classified as Islamophobia?

Yes, as is the condemnation of the literary criticism of the Quran which itself would be based upon the fear of the consequences of insulting Islam and, therefore, a bit of Islamophobia too.

Supplementary questions:

Are Irish jokes more/less acceptable now than they were during the 'troubles'?

Were funny cartoons and films from the '30s and '40s depicting Hitler as a silly little man, Germanophobic?

[Tony]

What exactly is Islamophobia these days?


Any criticism and/or skepticism or blasphemy of islam.

If, for example, a politician says on a round table discussion on CNN that the Quran is a terrible piece of literature and anyone who believes it is the best book ever written is seriously deluding themselves, is that classified as Islamophobia?

Yes. The Quran is the word of God, anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously scared or evil.

[Soapy Sam]

Surely the word means "an irrational fear of Islam".
As my neighbours happen to be named "Islam" and seem to be fine folk, I conclude I am not islamophobic.

[mrbaracuda]

Surely the word means "an irrational fear of Islam".

Great! Now try telling the UN/EU and those other ****tards who use it as depicted above by Tony they're using it the wrong way! :)

[FireGarden]

What exactly is Islamophobia these days? I see the word getting tossed around a lot since 9/11, but what is the definition?

I posted this before, but the original link doesn't seem to be available anymore. So here's a google cache (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Sy124qHDc7UJ:www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20080228/NEWS03/802280406/1017/)

Michael Golden, 23, Eric Baker, 32, and Jonathan Stone, 19, are accused of spray painting swastikas and throwing Molotov cocktails at the Islamic Center of Columbia, 1317 South Main St., on Feb. 9.

[...] Two of the three men facing federal charges in connection with the mosque firebombing told federal authorities that they are members of the Christian Identity movement, widely considered a white separatist movement.

[...] Baker added, "what goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible," the affidavit states.

How do you describe that?

If, for example, a politician says on a round table discussion on CNN that the Quran is a terrible piece of literature and anyone who believes it is the best book ever written is seriously deluding themselves, is that classified as Islamophobia?

I don't see why.
On the other hand, if they were to say or imply that all Muslims are terrorists or that Muslims can have no place in a liberal democracy -- that would be Islamophobia.

If a politician were to say: "Our nation does not have an Islamic tradition, therefore all Muslim immigrants must give up all their traditions and adopt ours if they want to stay" -- that would be Islamophobia.

[Undesired Walrus]

FireGarden, you can't honestly believe there would be no calls of Islamophobia if the politician called the Quran a terrible work of literature?


If a politician were to say: "Our nation does not have an Islamic tradition, therefore all Muslim immigrants must give up all their traditions and adopt ours if they want to stay" -- that would be Islamophobia.

If a politician were to say: "Our nation does not have a Scientologist tradition, therefore all Scientologists must give up all their traditions and adopt ours if they want to stay"

Would that be Scientologyphobia?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Islamophobia is the Muslim equivalent of Anti-Semitism for Judaism. It is the oppression of a group of people based on their religion, Islam.

Personally, I think there needs to be an -ism that fits for all forms of oppression based on religious group, to make it fit with the other -isms like racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, etc. Islamophobia is in the same class as all those.

[mrbaracuda]

How do you describe that?

I'd call that arson and willful damage to property. But thanks, I remember why I got you on ignore and why I shouldn't have clicked to view your post. :rolleyes:

[Undesired Walrus]

Islamophobia is the Muslim equivalent of Anti-Semitism for Judaism. It is the oppression of a group of people based on their religion, Islam.


It really isn't Tsukasa, as you make the common mistake of equating hatred of Islam with racism against a race. The Jews are a race. Islam is not a race.

If, for example I film myself ripping out a page of the Quran for some art instillation, is that Islamophobia?

If I declare I hate the values of the Republican party, is that oppression of a group? If I say the same about Scientology, is that oppression of a group?

[Whack01]

Basically Islamophobia is used in lieu of xenophobia. You see people were politically successful with the term Homophobia so they crafted the term islamophobia because they wanted to attach the same stigmas to the people & ideas whom they lable islamophobes as they had already attatched to "homophobes".

Its just like the word Neocon, at the time it was crafted the word NeoNaz had been around for awhile and the people who coined the term wanted to make the connection.

Or if your on the left there's always the classic Thespian-Lesbian example in politics.

[JoeEllison]

Islamophobia? That's when people claim that somehow the same violence and nastiness that goes on all over the world in all sorts of cultures is somehow more evil and more threatening towards the future of the world when it is committed by Muslims. For instance, death threats against loud folks are kind of par for the course... unless the death threats come from Muslims, in which case it is another sign that there are a billion people out there of a single evil mind to wipe out all of our freedoms and then kill us all with their evil evilness.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It really isn't Tsukasa, as you make the common mistake of equating hatred of Islam with racism against a race. The Jews are a race. Islam is not a race.

WTF?

And it isn't hatred of Islam, though it is related; it is the oppression of people who follow Islam.

If, for example I film myself ripping out a page of the Quran for some art instillation, is that Islamophobia?

I don't know, but we run into the same problem of shades of grey with sexism and racism too. I personally don't think so, but others may disagree.

If I declare I hate the values of the Republican party, is that oppression of a group? If I say the same about Scientology, is that oppression of a group?

Look, this is getting dangerously close to a hate speech debate, which isn't what you were originally asking about.

[Undesired Walrus]

WTF?

And it isn't hatred of Islam, though it is related; it is the oppression of people who follow Islam.

Ok, correction: The Jews share a very close ethnicity.

If you are talking about smearing faeces onto its followers faces as they walk into the mosque, I'd be right there with you.

But what type of 'oppression' are you talking about?

I don't know, but we run into the same problem of shades of grey with sexism and racism too. I personally don't think so, but others may disagree.

Good stuff.

Look, this is getting dangerously close to a hate speech debate, which isn't what you were originally asking about.

Well, as many Muslims tried to get a hate speech law passed against an American student who flushed a Quran down the toilet, I'd say it is relevant to the issue of Islamophobia. I'm sure we would both agree that If I flushed a copy of L Ron Hubbard's book down the lav, we would see any scientologist wishing that to be classed as a 'Hate crime' as insane. The same if I flushed a copy of the constitution down the toilet. If I flushed Unsecured Coins' army uniform down the toilet, he'd be right in calling me a crass, idiotic twat. But would he try and get a hate crime law passed against me?

JoeEllison, if I declare the Quran to be a sexist book, do you regard that as Islamophobia?

[brodski]

It really isn't Tsukasa, as you make the common mistake of equating hatred of Islam with racism against a race. The Jews are a race. Islam is not a race.

If, for example I film myself ripping out a page of the Quran for some art instillation, is that Islamophobia?

If I declare I hate the values of the Republican party, is that oppression of a group? If I say the same about Scientology, is that oppression of a group?

Race and religion are both social constructs which enable group identification, both from within and without the group.
The danger is when people take properties of some members of that group (whether real or imagined) and apply them universally to the whole of the group.

Anti-Semitism and islamiphobia have nothing to do with criticism of the religion they are about dehumanisation of the group based on supposedly inherent characteristics of said group

It is eh difference between "the Koran preaches a message of hate an intolerance" and "all Muslims are hateful and intolerant". Or, to take recent campaign of the BNP, the difference between "the life of Mohamed shows that he was a pedophile" and "all Muslims are pedophiles". The former statements are criticisms of Islam, the latter, for want of a better term, are islamophobic.

[RandFan]

How do you describe that?Idiocy, criminal behavior.

If a politician were to say: "Our nation does not have an Islamic tradition, therefore all Muslim immigrants must give up all their traditions and adopt ours if they want to stay" -- that would be Islamophobia.How about if a politician wanted to institute policies to discourage oppression of women (wife beating, burkas), intolerance of homosexuals, seperatism, anti-semitism, etc.?

[brodski]

Idiocy, criminal behavior.

How about if a politician wanted to institute policies to discourage oppression of women (wife beating, burkas), intolerance of homosexuals, seperatism, anti-semitism, etc.?

That would not be islamaphobia, religious tolerance is not the same as religious privilege. Can you point to anywhere where laws have been relaxed to allow Muslims to beat their wives?

[RandFan]

Well, as many Muslims tried to get a hate speech law passed against an American student who flushed a Quran down the toilet, I'd say it is relevant to the issue of Islamophobia. I'm sure we would both agree that If I flushed a copy of L Ron Hubbard's book down the lav, we would see any scientologist wishing that to be classed as a 'Hate crime' as insane. The same if I flushed a copy of the constitution down the toilet. If I flushed Unsecured Coins' army uniform down the toilet, he'd be right in calling me a crass, idiotic twat. But would he try and get a hate crime law passed against me?

JoeEllison, if I declare the Quran to be a sexist book, do you regard that as Islamophobia?Is burning the American flag demonstrative of a phobia of Americans?

I find that it is too easy to label criticism as hate speech and that is a powerful weapon to stiffle speech.

[RandFan]

That would not be islamaphobia, religious tolerance is not the same as religious privilege. Can you point to anywhere where laws have been relaxed to allow Muslims to beat their wives? Can you point to where I said that laws had been relaxed?

[FireGarden]

FireGarden, you can't honestly believe there would be no calls of Islamophobia if the politician called the Quran a terrible work of literature?

I answered the question: "is that classified as Islamophobia?" I still don't see why the example you gave should be considered Islamophobia. Or are you suggesting that everything which is called Islamophobia should be considered such? It's a bit like criticism of Israel. Is it all anti-Semitism? Because a lot of that criticism receives the label.

I notice that you made no comment on the example I gave. Perhaps you regard it as simple arson? (By members of a Christian white separatist group).

What about the desecration of a Muslim cemetery in France? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7333344.stm

If a politician were to say: "Our nation does not have a Scientologist tradition, therefore all Scientologists must give up all their traditions and adopt ours if they want to stay"

Would that be Scientologyphobia?

Yes.
If your problem is with scientology being against psychiatry, then take them to task for that. If your problem is with scientology asking members to break links with former friends, then take them to task for that. Etc.

In the same way that JWs are taken to task for their stance on blood transfusions, rather than for being JWs.

[brodski]

Can you point to where I said that laws had been relaxed?

Can you ppint to where i said that you said it had been realexed? ;)

The point is that no serious discussion of the p[problems of islamophobia start from the basis that Muslims should be exempt from secular laws designed to protect the civil rights of others.

[RandFan]

The point is that no serious discussion of the p[problems of islamophobia start from the basis that Muslims should be exempt from secular laws designed to protect the civil rights of others.But this misses the point. There is a culture clash and many Muslims who move to the west hold onto their beliefs and values that are antithetical to western values. Is it ok to criticize these beliefs and values and attempt to get Muslims to adopt more progressive values without being labeled islamophobic?

I don't think that is clear at all.

[Undesired Walrus]

I notice that you made no comment on the example I gave.

Because it is superfluous in the discussion of Islamophobia.

Yes.
If your problem is with scientology being against psychiatry, then take them to task for that. If your problem is with scientology asking members to break links with former friends, then take them to task for that. Etc.

In the same way that JWs are taken to task for their stance on blood transfusions, rather than for being JWs.

So it is not Islamophobic if I delcare the Quran to be a sexist book?

[Undesired Walrus]

It is eh difference between "the Koran preaches a message of hate an intolerance" and "all Muslims are hateful and intolerant". Or, to take recent campaign of the BNP, the difference between "the life of Mohamed shows that he was a pedophile" and "all Muslims are pedophiles". The former statements are criticisms of Islam, the latter, for want of a better term, are islamophobic.

The former 'Mohammed was a peadophile', if presented as opinion on Newsnight by Jack Straw, would be headline news the next day with demands for resignation and an apology. Would the same be the case if he declared that 'L Ron Hubbard was a lunatic'?

You are correct, there should always be a distinction between the practice and the practicer, but that is not the case when the phrase 'Islamophobia' is thrown about.

Of course a phrase such as 'All Muslims are hate filled bigots' is immature to the highest degree. Yet a phrase such as 'The Quran is a hate filled book' is avoided to the highest extent, and I fail to see why it should be.

[FireGarden]

Because it is superfluous in the discussion of Islamophobia.

So you are saying that an attack on a Mosque by people quoted as saying: "what goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible," has nothing to do with Islamophobia?

Would an attack on a Synagogue have been anti-Semitic? What about if it was carried out by people who said: "what goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible"?

So it is not Islamophobic if I delcare the Quran to be a sexist book?

In my opinion, you can say it without being Islamophobic.

[Smackety]

Are there any "free" democratic and predominantly Muslim states? This seeming incompatibility is scary to me personally, as I have a preference for the former.

[Undesired Walrus]

So you are saying that an attack on a Mosque by people quoted as saying: "what goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible," has nothing to do with Islamophobia?


Given that the definition of Islamophobia usually is attributed to someone like Van Gogh for saying that the Quran is a vicious, hate filled book, it seems quite different, yes.

[FireGarden]

Are there any "free" democratic and predominantly Muslim states? This seeming incompatibility is scary to me personally, as I have a preference for the former.

Why do you not consider Turkey to be free and democratic?

Is it because women are restricted in what they can wear? I've heard RandFan complain about it many times -- he doesn't like women being told what to wear. He thinks they should be allowed to wear headscarves in University if they wish. (Oh, and, don't get RandFan started on France, whatever you do!)

[FireGarden]

Given that the definition of Islamophobia usually is attributed to someone like Van Gogh for saying that the Quran is a vicious, hate filled book, it seems quite different, yes.

Are you serious?
Every sentence in your opening post was a question. I guess none of them were asked sincerely. Because you don't want people's opinion on what Islamophobia is. You only want examples of people saying "Don't criticise Muslims!" Any actual hatred of Muslims you want left out of the discussion.

[ddt]

(Oh, and, don't get RandFan started on France, whatever you do!)
You mean like here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3640676#post3640676)?

[JoeEllison]

JoeEllison, if I declare the Quran to be a sexist book, do you regard that as Islamophobia?

No, but if you claimed it was the most sexist book, or claimed that allowing a Muslim to hold political office in America was a sign that women were soon going to lose freedoms... THAT would be Islamophobia.

[JoeEllison]

Are there any "free" democratic and predominantly Muslim states? This seeming incompatibility is scary to me personally, as I have a preference for the former.

You might want to check into some history. You'll find that the relative lack of freedom isn't necessarily due to an Islamic majority.

Of course, part of Islamophobia includes the notion that history really started on 9-11, and going back before the 1970s is not only not worth thinking about, but not possible to think about.

[FireGarden]

You mean like here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3640676#post3640676)?

I was just thinking of headscarf bans and how RandFan doesn't like women being told how to dress.

[fuelair]

Great! Now try telling the UN/EU and those other ****tards who use it as depicted above by Tony they're using it the wrong way! :)
Islamophobia IS FEAR OF ISLAM and is THE FEAR OF: A)rule by Islam, B)people who follow Islam, C)making fun of Islam, D) pointing out literary flaws of the quaran, E)pointing out flat errors, lies, or not following of the quaran, F) making fun of Mohammy, G)etc.

Islamophobia is NOT:A)not wanting to be under Muslim rule/law(that is just smart), B)knowing good Muslims and not liking Muslim terrorists, C)making fun of Muslims, the quaran, Mohammy,etc. D)pointing out the flaws of the quaran.

[Earthborn]

There is a culture clash and many Muslims who move to the west hold onto their beliefs and values that are antithetical to western values.One of those western values is that people should be free to hold on to their beliefs and values. Claiming that it is especially Muslims whose values are antithetical to western values, while many non-Muslims in the West are free to hold on to very similar beliefs and values... is Islamophobic.

[FireGarden]

No, but if you claimed it was the most sexist book, or claimed that allowing a Muslim to hold political office in America was a sign that women were soon going to lose freedoms... THAT would be Islamophobia.

Your example reminds me of Keith Ellison's swearing in, his use of a Quran and the claim that it would "embolden Islamic extremists".

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_co ngressman_takes_his_oath_on

Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America.


(Yes, I know. He used a Quran in the photo-op after the swearing in)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ellison.asp

[St.Michael]

Islamophobia is a neologism created to silence legitimate criticism of Islam.

The word Christianophobia hasn't quite caught on but give it time.:rolleyes:

http://www.christianophobia.eu/

[Undesired Walrus]

Are you serious?
Every sentence in your opening post was a question. I guess none of them were asked sincerely. Because you don't want people's opinion on what Islamophobia is. You only want examples of people saying "Don't criticise Muslims!" Any actual hatred of Muslims you want left out of the discussion.

FireGarden,

the hatred of Muslims is left out entirely from the following 7 definitions of Islamophobia:

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

My opening post was not a question born out of no prior conception of what the term meant. It was a group of exacerbated questions that wish to ridicule an obfuscated demand.

I stand by my dismissal of your news articles as being superfluous, as there is a reason it is called 'Islamophobia' rather than 'Muslimphobia'. I think we can both agree that the former was chosen not because of the uncatchy title of the latter.

Point number 3 does not say anything about the claim 'All Muslims are sexist', a claim I do not, and will not agree with. No, instead it says it is Islamophobic to see Islam 'as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist'. So you and Joe seem to be confused about what the term actually means. Becuase whilst Joe claims it would not be Islamophobic to call the Quran a sexist book, the definition (Sourced from Islamophobia watch) says otherwise.

[FireGarden]

FireGarden,

the hatred of Muslims is left out entirely from the following 7 definitions of Islamophobia:

You left out a link to your source:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/

And hatred of Muslims seems implied in the 8th, which you AGAIN seek to leave out.

8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

An arson attack on a Mosque is anti-Muslim hostility. It fits under the defintion you just quoted.

Point number 3 does not say anything about the claim 'All Muslims are sexist', a claim I do not, and will not agree with. No, instead it says it is Islamophobic to see Islam 'as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist'.

So those Muslims that voted for female leaders are not a part of Islam? Or decided to ignore Islam?

Is Christianity homophobic? What do gay Christians say about that? Including this guy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220

So you and Joe seem to be confused about what the term actually means. Becuase whilst Joe claims it would not be Islamophobic to call the Quran a sexist book, the definition (Sourced from Islamophobia watch) says otherwise.

I've agreed that you can say the Quran is sexist without being Islamophobic. But Islam's relationship to the Quran is as complex as Christianity's relationship to the Bible. That is why there is such a variety within Islam. You'll find Muslims that have a different interpretation to the one you consider.

[FireGarden]

And your source quotes a variety of definitions. The one you used was from the Runnymede Trust.

They quote wiki saying "Islamophobia is the fear and/or hatred of Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture." Wiki has been edited since, but still says:

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

Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.

And, taking another look at item 7 on the list you quoted: "Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society."

I think that an arson attack on a Mosque descriminates against Muslims -- the people who did it would not have attacked a building associated with Christians.

I think the attack amounts to the statement "Get lost!" I don't think the aim of the arsonists was to destroy the building -- they wanted to intimidate the people. Exclude them from their society.

[Ysidro]

Wouldn't "arabio-persianphobia" be more accurate in most cases?

[Mycroft]

It really isn't Tsukasa, as you make the common mistake of equating hatred of Islam with racism against a race. The Jews are a race. Islam is not a race.

I really don't think the racial distinction is important.


If I declare I hate the values of the Republican party, is that oppression of a group? If I say the same about Scientology, is that oppression of a group?

Probably not oppression since you're only one guy expressing an opinion, but expressing such an attitude may well be bigoted. Both the Republican Party platform and Scientology are likely to both embrace values that are non-controversial, and a blanket condemnation of all these values is certainly irrational.

Which of course is not the same as finding core issues of disagreement with both of these philosophies.

One of those western values is that people should be free to hold on to their beliefs and values. Claiming that it is especially Muslims whose values are antithetical to western values, while many non-Muslims in the West are free to hold on to very similar beliefs and values... is Islamophobic.

Well, it might be bigoted and hold a double standard, but it doesn't seem Islamophobic.

So you are saying that an attack on a Mosque by people quoted as saying: "what goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible," has nothing to do with Islamophobia?

It's certainly an act of hatred and bigotry, and hatred and bigotry may certainly be motivated by phobia, but I wouldn't call them synonymous.

[RadioactiveMan]

I'm not quite seeing how hatred of anyone is sufficient grounds for declaring they have an irrational fear of that person.

[Mycroft]

But this misses the point. There is a culture clash and many Muslims who move to the west hold onto their beliefs and values that are antithetical to western values. Is it ok to criticize these beliefs and values and attempt to get Muslims to adopt more progressive values without being labeled islamophobic?

I don't think that is clear at all.

I think one should be very careful what values one attempts to criticize.

For example, isolationism. Many would criticize Islamic peoples for immigrating to Western nations, then forming insular communities where mostly Arabic is spoken, where everyone has satellite television so they only watch television with a Middle Eastern perspective, and people behave by very conservative old-world standards.

Is that a problem?

Well, yes and no. In truth, lots of immigrant peoples do this, and the pattern has been that over time these communities become less insular and more assimilationist. In addition, Western culture allows for like-minded people to form communities where you can isolate yourself from people of different values. We have religiously oriented private schools, or enclaves that people can join, and it's entirely consistent with Western values that people have the freedom to do this.

At the same time, this isolationism becomes a legitimate cause for concern if individuals of that community are hostile to the larger society, as was the apparent case in the 7/7 attacks on London.

[Undesired Walrus]

You left out a link to your source:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/

And hatred of Muslims seems implied in the 8th, which you AGAIN seek to leave out.

No, FireGarden, I did not. Look closer at what I said before reproducing that article.

An arson attack on a Mosque is anti-Muslim hostility. It fits under the defintion you just quoted.

Yes. It is anti-Muslim. Glad we agree. So therefore, are you now willing to refute the other seven meanings of Islamopobia?


So those Muslims that voted for female leaders ... decided to ignore Islam?

Yes.

Is Christianity homophobic? What do gay Christians say about that? Including this guy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220

Lots of Christians are not homophobes. The Bible is homophobic. Lots of Muslims are not sexist. The Quran is. Fitting under the definitions above, what I just said is Islamophobic. Do you agree?



I've agreed that you can say the Quran is sexist without being Islamophobic. But Islam's relationship to the Quran is as complex as Christianity's relationship to the Bible. That is why there is such a variety within Islam. You'll find Muslims that have a different interpretation to the one you consider.

So therefore you are willing to criticise Trey Parker and Matt Stone for portraying scientology as a 'great global scam' after many scientologists say that is 'not what it is about'?

[Undesired Walrus]

At the same time, this isolationism becomes a legitimate cause for concern if individuals of that community are hostile to the larger society, as was the apparent case in the 7/7 attacks on London.

A common attitude toward the case of the July 7th bombers is that three lived in Beeston, an isolated community in Leeds.

This theory is somewhat distrupted when the nine men currently on trial for the liquid bomb plot were born in, raised in, and lived in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world, London, with one of their members recently being a high-profile student in Met University and another being a former rastafarian. Or the case of the recent convert to Islam who was plotting bomb attacks in Brixton.

[Mycroft]

A common attitude toward the case of the July 7th bombers is that three lived in Beeston, an isolated community in Leeds.

This theory is somewhat distrupted when the nine men currently on trial for the liquid bomb plot were born in, raised in, and lived in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world, London, with one of their members recently being a high-profile student in Met University and another being a former rastafarian. Or the case of the recent convert to Islam who was plotting bomb attacks in Brixton.

I hope I didn't imply that isolationism itself were a cause for violent radicalism, only that isolationism might be seen as a symptom of holding "beliefs and values that are antithetical to western values" that Randfan was talking about. I was not proposing any "theory" on why individuals become violent radicals.

[Smackety]

Why do you not consider Turkey to be free and democratic?

Is it because women are restricted in what they can wear? I've heard RandFan complain about it many times -- he doesn't like women being told what to wear. He thinks they should be allowed to wear headscarves in University if they wish. (Oh, and, don't get RandFan started on France, whatever you do!)

I was actually asking a question. At at glance, Turkey seems to be a democratic, primarily (99%) Muslim country. That is very encouraging.
Why don't other Islamic countries follow their lead?

[Smackety]

You might want to check into some history. You'll find that the relative lack of freedom isn't necessarily due to an Islamic majority.

Of course, part of Islamophobia includes the notion that history really started on 9-11, and going back before the 1970s is not only not worth thinking about, but not possible to think about.

I believe the fallacy you are using is called a 'strawman'.

[Undesired Walrus]

I hope I didn't imply that isolationism itself were a cause for violent radicalism, only that isolationism might be seen as a symptom of holding "beliefs and values that are antithetical to western values" that Randfan was talking about. I was not proposing any "theory" on why individuals become violent radicals.

Apologies.

[Whack01]

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
- Winston Churchill

Just seemed like this was an appropriate quote for the thread.

[RandFan]

One of those western values is that people should be free to hold on to their beliefs and values. Claiming that it is especially Muslims whose values are antithetical to western values, while many non-Muslims in the West are free to hold on to very similar beliefs and values... is Islamophobic.Beating women, hating homosexuals, etc are antithetical to western values. You are playing a silly game. This is what bothers me most about political correctness. As if we have to give up core values in favor of lesser ones. Civil rights trumps. IMO, end of story. Just because some cultures tolerate wife beating doesn't mean I have to.

[FireGarden]

It's certainly an act of hatred and bigotry, and hatred and bigotry may certainly be motivated by phobia, but I wouldn't call them synonymous.

Did you hear Bobby Fischer's defence?: He wasn't anti-Semitic because he liked Arabs. Anti-Semetism isn't the hatred of Semitic people, regardless of what the parts of the phrase mean on their own.

Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.

[Undesired Walrus]

Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.

Which you have yet been unable to define.

Given that we agree on point No.8 of those eight definitions, are you willing to dismiss the other seven as not being indicative of what your definition of 'Islamophobia' is?

Are you willing to criticise Stone and Parker for not taking into account the various ways in which Scientologists see their religion?

If there is an art installation of Mohammed eyeing up his child bride with an visible erection, then ejaculating over a page of the Quran, is that -in your definition- bigotry and discrimination?

[FireGarden]

No, FireGarden, I did not. Look closer at what I said before reproducing that article.

You wanted to refer to the first 7, but not the 8th -- the one which talks about anti-Muslim hostility.

And remember your source for that list?
It turns out that the authority you chose to give a definition of Islamophobia agrees with me. They have the exact same story:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/2/28/men-admit-to-varied-roles-in-mosque-fire.html

Your source on what Islamophobia is regards an arson attack on a Mosque to be an example of Islamophobia. Are they good enough to give a definition, but not good enough to provide examples? I wouldn't be surprised if that was your view.

Yes. It is anti-Muslim. Glad we agree. So therefore, are you now willing to refute the other seven meanings of Islamopobia?

What other 7 meanings?
Read the page again:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/

They list 8 components of Islamophobia. And so what if there ARE different types of Islamophobia? My example is still valid to a discussion of Islamophobia -- as agreed by the authority YOU cited.

Yes.

So Muslims that don't behave in the way you think they should behave are not following Islam. Then why call them Muslims?

Lots of Christians are not homophobes. The Bible is homophobic. Lots of Muslims are not sexist. The Quran is. Fitting under the definitions above, what I just said is Islamophobic. Do you agree?

Take a look at component one on your list. "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change."

Some of what you say implies that Islam (and Christianity) is a monolithic bloc that is not allowed to change. As such, it could fall into the definition.

Islam does change. Islam does have variety. Muslims that vote for female leaders are real Muslims following a valid example of Islam.

The Quran certainly has sexist passages in it. There are also some Muslims who are sexist. Neither of which makes Islam sexist.

Just as the Bible has homophobic passages, and there are also some Christians who are homophobic. Neither of which makes Christianity homophobic.

Both are too broad to characterise as a whole.

Reading sacred texts is a great way to find out about religion -- but only if you enjoy being surprised by reality.

So therefore you are willing to criticise Trey Parker and Matt Stone for portraying scientology as a 'great global scam' after many scientologists say that is 'not what it is about'?

I can't say I've heard of them.

I saw a Channel 4 documentary on Scientology.
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/guide.html

These call themselves "freezoners" and are outside the "official" church -- but they are still Scientologists. And different to other Scientologists.

Via wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_(Scientology)

I found this:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb178508.htm

which claims to quote L Ron on the subject of charging for faith:

The scientology freezone is an area in which one is free to persue ones personal development up the spiritual ladder using the techniques Ron Hubbard designed for such a purpose, without any stops, harassment, unethical abuse, suppression of the right to practice ones own philosophy or threats to ones spiritual future.

Ron Hubbard said …The work was free keep it so…” and the Freezone is delivering up on this promise!



[...] "I will not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way, and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away. You wont always be here. But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons: "THE WORK WAS FREE. KEEP IT SO." L. RON HUBBARD

So even a religion as new as Scientology has split into branches. Why make blanket statements?

[FireGarden]

Given that we agree on point No.8 of those eight definitions, are you willing to dismiss the other seven as not being indicative of what your definition of 'Islamophobia' is?

I'm not dismissing the other 7. I just don't think that every component needs to present to recognise Islamophobia. And, as I said, your source agrees with me on the arson example I gave.

If there is an art installation of Mohammed eyeing up his child bride with an visible erection, then ejaculating over a page of the Quran, is that -in your definition- bigotry and discrimination?

I wouldn't call it art.
I would want to know more about the artist and their intentions before I decided if it was motivated by Islamophobia -- or childish trolling for attention.

[Undesired Walrus]

They list 8 components of Islamophobia. And so what if there ARE different types of Islamophobia? My example is still valid to a discussion of Islamophobia -- as agreed by the authority YOU cited.

What I'm trying to derive from you is if you agree that the other 7 definitions are things that are not acceptable. We both agree that the 8th is a thing that is not acceptable. I simply wish to know what your position on the others are.

So Muslims that don't behave in the way you think they should behave are not following Islam. Then why call them Muslims?

Good question.



Take a look at component one on your list. "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change."

Some of what you say implies that Islam (and Christianity) is a monolithic bloc that is not allowed to change. As such, it could fall into the definition.

Islam does change. Islam does have variety. Muslims that vote for female leaders are real Muslims following a valid example of Islam.

The Quran certainly has sexist passages in it. There are also some Muslims who are sexist. Neither of which makes Islam sexist.

Just as the Bible has homophobic passages, and there are also some Christians who are homophobic. Neither of which makes Christianity homophobic.

Both are too broad to characterise as a whole.

FireGarden, this is simply a mammoth strawman. Where did I say, anywhere in the above quote, that Islam is sexist? I said the Quran is a sexist book, in the same way it is a book written in Arabic. I said nothing about Muslims or their religion as a whole.

You are making the same mistake you are arguing against, equating any criticism of the components of Islam as being indicative of the Religion as a whole. That is the blanket statement, not mine.


So even a religion as new as Scientology has split into branches. Why make blanket statements?

So you do think Matt Stone and Trey Parker -creators of South Park- were behaving irresponsibly when their scientology episode called Scientology 'A great global scam'?

And why wouldn't you call that installation art? Would you say 'Piss Christ' is not art either?

[FireGarden]

FireGarden, this is simply a mammoth strawman. Where did I say, anywhere in the above quote, that Islam is sexist? I said the Quran is a sexist book, in the same way it is a book written in Arabic. I said nothing about Muslims or their religion as a whole.

But you wanted your example ("The Quran is sexist") to be included as an example of Islamophobia under point 3 of the definition: "Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist."

This implies, to me, that you want what you say about the Quran to apply to Islam. Why else cite point 3?

The Quran is one book. Islam is many faiths.

So you do think Matt Stone and Trey Parker -creators of South Park- were behaving irresponsibly when their scientology episode called Scientology 'A great global scam'?

Oh I've heard of South Park -- I'm not that far out of the loop. Haven't watched it much, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)

'Dude, we totally love working with you, and this is nothing personal, it's just we're South Park, and if we don't do this, we're belittling everything else we've ripped on".


[Hayes] 'Guys, you have it all wrong. We're not like that. I know that's your thing, but get your information correct, because somebody might believe that ****, you know?' But I understand what they're doing. I told them to take a couple of Scientology courses, and understand what we do. [Laughs]"


I was actually going to ask "Do they make fun of Dawkins?"

Google turns up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go

Dawkins is at first reluctant to be so brazen, but later in bed (surrounded by various types of sexual paraphernalia) Garrison tells him he was too soft on religious people in the past and that together they can rid the world of religions and all the violence that they cause.

So I guess they do!
South Park seems to make fun of everything. It might have been more bigoted to leave Scientology out!

That said, I don't see it as being fair to Scientology. But there isn't any obligation on the part of a comedy show to be fair.

And why wouldn't you call that installation art? Would you say 'Piss Christ' is not art either?

This is another thing I wasn't aware of.

Google gives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.

So there are interpretations -- just like with most things.

I don't know what the artist intended. It's not to my taste. I wouldn't call it art.

[RadioactiveMan]

Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.
So what you're telling us is that the "irrational fear of Islam" has nothing to do with irrational fears and everything to do with being nice to people.

How is that a phobia?

[Undesired Walrus]

But you wanted your example ("The Quran is sexist") to be included as an example of Islamophobia under point 3 of the definition: "Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist."

This implies, to me, that you want what you say about the Quran to apply to Islam. Why else cite point 3?

The Quran is one book. Islam is many faiths.

Right, so we've so far established that it is the blanket dismissals of an entire religion these particular Muslims have problems with. If that is the case, why were the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed seen as Islamophobic? Are you willing to say they are inaccurate of what you define Islamophobia as?

Ayaan Hirshi Ali is as knowledgable about Islam as anyone. Why should she be called an Islamophobe when she criticises Islam as backward and inferior to the West? It makes no sense that they set up point number 3 to mean that even if the worlds most knowledgable student of Islam would be called an Islamophobe if they declared it inferior to the west in the same way someone would with Marxism. If someone said that anyone who said Marxism was inferior to the west (not a statement I agree with), was a Marxist-phobe we would treat it as an absurdity. Why not with Islamophobia?

Regardless of South Park insulting everyone, why do you believe they acted irresponsibly when they said scientology was a 'Great global scam'? You would thus, presumably support a widespread use of the phrase 'Scientologyphobia'. But I'm guessing you will not, as we both see it as absurd! So why not with Islam?

I don't see what their method of ridiculing everyone should have to do with anything.

I don't know what the artist intended. It's not to my taste. I wouldn't call it art.

Why not?

If he/she said they did it because they hated Christianity and wanted to show how it may as well be bathed in her/his urine, would that be irresponsible bigotry?

[Mycroft]

Did you hear Bobby Fischer's defence?: He wasn't anti-Semitic because he liked Arabs. Anti-Semetism isn't the hatred of Semitic people, regardless of what the parts of the phrase mean on their own.

Bobby Fisher, being crazy paranoid, can be forgiven his idiocy, but in forgiving his idiocy we don't have to imitate his madness. Unfortunately I've seen that same logic applied in these forums by people who don't have Bobby Fishers excuse.


Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.

It's a phobia. The definition of a phobia is well established and has been for centuries. If our language needs a specific word to describe bigotry against Muslims, then it should be something else. This word only means fear of Muslims.

[Mycroft]

Ayaan Hirshi Ali is as knowledgable about Islam as anyone. Why should she be called an Islamophobe when she criticises Islam as backward and inferior to the West? It makes no sense that they set up point number 3 to mean that even if the worlds most knowledgable student of Islam would be called an Islamophobe if they declared it inferior to the west in the same way someone would with Marxism. If someone said that anyone who said Marxism was inferior to the west (not a statement I agree with), was a Marxist-phobe we would treat it as an absurdity. Why not with Islamophobia?

Well, what you're pointing out is that as a neologism, the word is often being used inappropriately. As a neologism, the word is being promoted as a tool to silence criticism of Islam.

[RandFan]

I wouldn't call it art.
I would want to know more about the artist and their intentions before I decided if it was motivated by Islamophobia -- or childish trolling for attention.Those are the only options? I'm curious, do you consider Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) a phobia of Christianity or childish trolling for attention?

ETA: Damn, late to the dance again.

[RandFan]

Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.Amazing. Really? Well, as I often say words are not absolute. A rose is a rose...

Where is this bigotry? Where is this discrimination? Let's see, oppression of women, intolerance of gays... oh, it's those of us who critisize Islam. We are the bigots. We are the ones who discriminate.

BS

[Undesired Walrus]

Where is this bigotry? Where is this discrimination? Let's see, oppression of women, intolerance of gays... oh, it's those of us who critisize Islam. We are the bigots. We are the ones who discriminate.

BS

Can we call them civil-society phobes?

Will a group of Westerners who see themselves as ever-so-liberal sympathise with our political struggle when we call for Hamas TV to be shut down and their producers beheaded?

No? Ok, Carry on.

[FreeRomanian]

First of al, IT IS NOT an ISLAMOPHOBIA!

Phobia is an irational fear, such arachnophobia(the irational fear of spiders), claustrophobia(the irational fear of confined spaces) etc...

We are talking about A JUSTIFIED FEAR OF ISLAM!


And we have every reason to be afraid and to opose islam.

Islam and democracy are two totally different concepts!



"
This is how Europe will be like in 200 years if we, Europeans continue to have so few children and we will continue to accept so many islamist imigrants who have at least 7 children, and who will eventually outnumber us!

Stop mocking the idea, and get real! It is happening in front of our eyes!


Rioting over women's rights in Bangladesh - 12 April 08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrtWGDviE4I

"

[mrbaracuda]

FireGarden, this is simply a mammoth strawman.

You might want to get to know FireGarden here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109973&page=2) :rolleyes:

[EssenceOfMagic]

I think it has a pretty wide breadth these days unfortunately.

[RandFan]

I think it has a pretty wide breadth these days unfortunately.That's nice but what are you talking about?

[FireGarden]

Bobby Fisher, being crazy paranoid, can be forgiven his idiocy, but in forgiving his idiocy we don't have to imitate his madness. Unfortunately I've seen that same logic applied in these forums by people who don't have Bobby Fishers excuse.

You are the one immitating his madness by insisting on working out the meaning of a phrase by taking it apart into smaller phrases. Arabs are Semitic. But anti-Semitism isn't about hating Arabs or Semitic people in general -- it means hating Jews.

The phrase is badly coined, but we are stuck with it.

Ditto Islamophobia. It isn't a phobia, but the phrase is coined and has a meaning other than the sum of its parts.

If our language needs a specific word to describe bigotry against Muslims, then it should be something else.

You may have a point.
Coin one, let's see if catchs on.

[Earthborn]

Beating women, hating homosexuals, etc are antithetical to western values.Really? For much of Western history people didn't think so. Lots of people still don't think so, including many Western political movements.

As if we have to give up core values in favor of lesser ones.You don't have to give up many of your core values as long as they don't affect other's core values. An important core Western value is that people with many different core values should be able to live peacefully together.

Just because some cultures tolerate wife beating doesn't mean I have to.Then don't. You are free to not tolerate anything as long as that intolerance doesn't cause you to break the law.

[mrbaracuda]

Both signal a lack of confidence in your own abilities.

I don't know about that, but I think he's just young, eager and deeply concerned. :( At least he seems to be a nice guy! :)

[Earthborn]

Islamophobia isn't about phobias. It's about bigotry and discrimination.I think there is a difference between Islamophobia and anti-Islamism, even if they often go hand in hand. A person may be unreasonably afraid of Islam even when not in principle opposing Islamic movements that would appear less scary. Another person may oppose all of Islam no matter how peaceful a Islamic movement may be.

[FireGarden]

Right, so we've so far established that it is the blanket dismissals of an entire religion these particular Muslims have problems with.

Which particular Muslims?
I joined this thread to answer your questions by giving some examples of what I regarded as Islamophobia. These examples were dismissed as being beside the point. You wanted to talk about a smaller subset of Islamophobia, with your example of "The Quran is sexist".

I gave my opinion that this was not Islamophobic. You said some people think it is and gave a source. That is the stage we have got to.

You say we've established something.
Do you agree that saying something about the Quran is not the same as saying something about Islam?

If that is the case, why were the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed seen as Islamophobic? Are you willing to say they are inaccurate of what you define Islamophobia as?

Were the cartoons about Mohammed, or were they about Islam? What does it mean to have a founder of a religion dressed with a bomb for a turban? Does that say nothing about the religion?

That's the problem with "art" -- it's difficult to interpret.

The guy who drew it is quoted at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

There are interpretations of it [the drawing] that are incorrect. The general impression among Muslims is that it is about Islam as a whole. It is not. It is about certain fundamentalist aspects, that of course are not shared by everyone.

So, as an artist, he didn't get his point across. He was misunderstood. He offered a clarification that he wasn't targeting the whole of Islam.

Was it Islamophobic?
I guess that depends on whether you believe the artist.

Regardless of South Park insulting everyone, why do you believe they acted irresponsibly when they said scientology was a 'Great global scam'?

Did you see my post about the FreeZoners? The ones that quote L Ron saying "Keep it free"

Scientology, new as it is, has already split. That makes me uncomfortable with blanket statements about it.

You would thus, presumably support a widespread use of the phrase 'Scientologyphobia'. But I'm guessing you will not, as we both see it as absurd! So why not with Islam?

You'd guess wrong.

If you want to accuse particular people of being charlatans, or con-men that's fine. But Scientology is bigger than those people. It includes people who believe in the story L Ron invented. This includes people who aren't out there to commit fraud, but who honestly believe -- just like the believers of any other faith.

I don't see what their method of ridiculing everyone should have to do with anything.

It gives a context to their intention.

Why not?

I'm not going to be able to define art.
I know it when I see it. No other way. So I can only ever give my opinion: "I don't think it's art" rather than "It isn't art".

If he/she said they did it because they hated Christianity and wanted to show how it may as well be bathed in her/his urine, would that be irresponsible bigotry?

So now you want me to judge if it is irresponsible bigotry. Beyond my pay grade. :D

[FireGarden]

Amazing. Really? Well, as I often say words are not absolute. A rose is a rose...

Where is this bigotry? Where is this discrimination? Let's see, oppression of women, intolerance of gays... oh, it's those of us who critisize Islam. We are the bigots. We are the ones who discriminate.

BS

If your problem is with sexism, then address that. When you attack the whole of Islam then you are being bigoted.

Do you remember Shirin Ebadi? The woman you said was on your side? http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3634656&postcount=310

If you accuse Islam of being sexist, then you accuse her of being either sexist or not really a Muslim. I don't see how that helps her.

She's on your side. Are you on her's?

[ddt]

I don't know about that, but I think he's just young, eager and deeply concerned. :( At least he seems to be a nice guy! :)

Really?? He has his "knowledge", a.o. from the IHR - see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3690252&postcount=334) for instance.

[Undesired Walrus]

Do you agree that saying something about the Quran is not the same as saying something about Islam?

Yes.

Were the cartoons about Mohammed, or were they about Islam? What does it mean to have a founder of a religion dressed with a bomb for a turban? Does that say nothing about the religion?

That's the problem with "art" -- it's difficult to interpret.

The guy who drew it is quoted at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy



So, as an artist, he didn't get his point across. He was misunderstood. He offered a clarification that he wasn't targeting the whole of Islam.

Was it Islamophobic?
I guess that depends on whether you believe the artist.

Terrific. I'm glad we've established that you regard all those who described it as Islamophobic as incorrect in their statements.

To treat the cartoons as any other kind of criticism is what I wanted to agree with you on, and I'm glad we have done so.

Scientology, new as it is, has already split. That makes me uncomfortable with blanket statements about it.

So what? Blanket statements are given every single day in political cartoons that are a lot harsher than that episode of southpark. When Steve Bell drew a cartoon of Uncle Sam (Remember, he embodies the entire United states) holding a map of the Bush-won state of Florida over his groin to represent a flacid penis, nobody complains about that. It is simply part of growing up.

[RandFan]

Really? For much of Western history people didn't think so. Lots of people still don't think so, including many Western political movements.I'm talking about our values now. Please tell me which modern Western Democracies condone or encourage wife beating?

You don't have to give up many of your core values as long as they don't affect other's core values. An important core Western value is that people with many different core values should be able to live peacefully together.

Then don't. You are free to not tolerate anything as long as that intolerance doesn't cause you to break the law. You are not advancing an argument. There is nothing in these two paragraphs that wasn't understood before you posted them. Further they don't obviate any point that I am making, as far as I can tell.

[RandFan]

If your problem is with sexism, then address that. When you attack the whole of Islam then you are being bigoted.

Do you remember Shirin Ebadi? The woman you said was on your side? http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3634656&postcount=310

If you accuse Islam of being sexist, then you accuse her of being either sexist or not really a Muslim. I don't see how that helps her.


She's on your side. Are you on her's?
I'm not anti-Islam.
I don't hate Muslims.
I believe in freedom of choice and to live and let live.
I don't advocate the dissolution of religion in general or Islam in particular.To quote Pat Condell, you are seeing into my criticism of Islam what you want to see. When those who practice Islam do so without beating their wives or hating homosexuals or blowing things up then I'm fine with that.

The problem is that there is a significant part of Islam that is violent, homophobic and repressive and it is that part of Islam that I am criticizing. Not every Christian contemporary of their times burned witches or took part in the Crusades or the Inquisitions but I criticize Christianity for them nonetheless.

I'm not going to twist myself up in knots pretending that these acts have nothing to do with the religion. That's dishonest and not at all productive.

Please listen to the following: Can we have our planet back? (http://richarddawkins.net/audio/NowShow_Brigstocke_BBCR4-20070720.mp3) I'm willing to bet that if you took out any reference to Islam only rednecks would label that as bigoted. Would you?

[FireGarden]

When those who practice Islam do so without beating their wives or hating homosexuals or blowing things up then I'm fine with that.

The problem is that there is a significant part of Islam that is violent, homophobic and repressive and it is that part of Islam that I am criticizing. Not every Christian contemporary of their times burned witches or took part in the Crusades or the Inquisitions but I criticize Christianity for them nonetheless.

I'm not going to twist myself up in knots pretending that these acts have nothing to do with the religion. That's dishonest and not at all productive.

I'm not asking you to tie yourself up in knots. But, since you admit that your criticism doesn't apply to the whole of religion, why target the whole of religion?

isten to the following: Can we have our planet back? (http://richarddawkins.net/audio/NowShow_Brigstocke_BBCR4-20070720.mp3) I'm willing to bet that if you took out any reference to Islam only rednecks would label that as bigoted. Would you?

Brigstocke disagreed with you. He was expecting criticism from all three Abrahamic faiths. I haven't found any data on that, but the BBC got complaints about the Jerry Springer Opera.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4507636.stm

Supermarkets withdrew DVDs from their shelves. BBC TV execs received death threats.

But you would bet that, if Islam were not mentioned, only rednecks would complain. Why is that? Am I just seeing things again?

[RandFan]

I'm not asking you to tie yourself up in knots. But, since you admit that your criticism doesn't apply to the whole of religion, why target the whole of religion? Because the behavior stems from the religion.

Brigstocke disagreed with you. Hoorah for freedom of speech and the right to disagree.

He was expecting criticism from all three Abrahamic faiths. I haven't found any data on that, but the BBC got complaints about the Jerry Springer Opera.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4507636.stm

Supermarkets withdrew DVDs from their shelves. BBC TV execs received death threats.

But you would bet that, if Islam were not mentioned, only rednecks would complain. I doubt that but perhaps. We know that Islam regularly complains about this kind of criticism. That's a fact.

Why is that?I don't accept your premise but you could be right. If so then I don't know. Their position seems in line with yours so you would be better to answer that. I'll ask you, why is that? Are they inconsistent? Are you?

Am I just seeing things again? Could be but I don't know. In the end I'm really more interested in your opinion. Do you think Jerry Springer the Opera is bigoted? Do you think Brigstocke is bigoted?

FTR, though I think my suspicions largely correct I really wouldn't give a damn if I was completely wrong and people like you are consistent and think all religious criticism is bigoted.

Anyway, would you answer the questions? They are not really rhetorical.

[FireGarden]

Terrific. I'm glad we've established that you regard all those who described it as Islamophobic as incorrect in their statements.

To treat the cartoons as any other kind of criticism is what I wanted to agree with you on, and I'm glad we have done so.

I'm willing to accept that the artist didn't intend to speak about the whole of Islam. In fact, that cartoon reminded me of the Einstein bomb-out-of-head picture.

But people aren't obliged to agree with us.

[FireGarden]

I doubt that but perhaps. We know that Islam regularly complains about this kind of criticism. That's a fact.

And we also know that Christians regularly complain, too.

I think you misunderstood my question. I wanted to know why you thought there would be no complaints if Islam was not mentioned. You were willing to bet on it.

Are they inconsistent? Are you?

I try to be consistent.
I have to admit to liking Monty Pythons' Life of Brian. Does that make fun of Christianity? In a good-hearted way, I think. It doesn't say "Christianity has to be this", "Christianity has to be that". If anything it says: "Whatever Christianity was supposed to be, people were never going to be able to stick to it."

Splitters!

Could be but I don't know. In the end I'm really more interested in your opinion. Do you think Jerry Springer the Opera is bigoted? Do you think Brigstocke is bigoted?

I don't know enough about either.

FTR, though I think my suspicions largely correct I really wouldn't give a damn if I was completely wrong and people like you are consistent and think all religious criticism is bigoted.

I do not think that all religious criticism is bigoted. I criticise religion myself. But I don't go for the "Root of all evil" type of criticism. I mostly use the "That's not true" angle when criticising religion.

[mrbaracuda]

Really??

Yes really.

He has his "knowledge", a.o. from the IHR - see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3690252&postcount=334) for instance.

Your point? I'm aware he also said some mass murder guy who collobarated with the Nazis to get rid of the local Joos in Romania is a saint. I know and I guess I don't agree with much or anything he has to say. That's why I usually skip his posts. But at least he's friendly, even if annoying at times.

[RandFan]

I think you misunderstood my question. I wanted to know why you thought there would be no complaints if Islam was not mentioned. You were willing to bet on it. I was not clear. I was talking about those on the left and not those on the right. It's really not a significant point. If I'm wrong that's fine. I don't think I am but I'm not sure our debating it will solve much one way or the other.

I don't know enough about either. Hang on, do you think Brigstock's commentary is bigoted? Just that. Brigstock is critisizing the fact that religion is behind much of the violence in the world. Is that criticism bigotry?

I do not think that all religious criticism is bigoted. I criticise religion myself. But I don't go for the "Root of all evil" type of criticism. I mostly use the "That's not true" angle when criticising religion. I don't believe that religion is the root of all evil and I've never claimed that it is. That's just a strawman. I'm saying that religion is often behind much of the evil that does go on.

The FLDS church hands out girls as young as 12 to old men so they can rape them. That's done in the name of religion. In America a person can legally neglect their children to the point of death so long as the neglect is done under the auspices of religious healing (http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/national_clearinghouse_bibliography_religious_immu nity.htm).

I think that such religious nonsense is ripe for outspoken, firm criticism. I think we should stand up and say BS. Just because a person believes that an invisible man in the sky said it is ok DOESN'T make it ok.

I'm not going to sit here and mealy mouth declare "well, that isn't true". **** that!

And when men fly planes into buildings because they believe that there are 72 virgins and god's warm embrace waiting for them I'm going to speak out and like the proverbial child pointing out the nakedness of the emperor declare that it is all religious nonsense.

Now would be a good time to introduce a website devoted to the harm caused by supernatural nonsense. First, http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon4.gif a warning, if the truth about the harm that religion can cause offends you then you might want to avoid it.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[Undesired Walrus]

I have to second RandFan's request. Is Marcus Brigstock is being bigoted FireGarden?

After all, he seems to say "Listen up my beardy and veily friends". Isn't that a blanket attack on Islam by your standards?

You seem to be getting distracted and pointing out "Well Christians get criticised and complain too". We know. We criticise it when they complain too.

[Rufo]

I believe the original question of the OP was answered in the third reply. Islamophobia is irrational fear of Islam. For the extended meanings suggested by others, well, consider similar, older words, like xenophobia and homophobia. It usually ends up extending to a lot of bad feelings towards the group or concept in question, although the strict etymology suggests fear.

As for the discussion of if certain actions "are Islamophobic", it seems to be fairly fruitless. This is because Islamophobia is not in one's actions, but in one's motivations. If I decide to move away from my house the day Muslims move in next door, is that Islamophobic? Only I know. Perhaps I simply decided to move that day for whatever other reason, like that I didn't want new neighbours at all. If I stab a Muslim man to death unprovoked, is that Islamophobia? Only I know. Perhaps I was a schizophrenic psychopath and decided to stab the next person I passed by.

So if someone says the Qur'an is a terrible piece of literature, is that Islamophobic? Only they know. Perhaps they simply spoke their mind based on what they know of it. Perhaps they suffer from a irrational fear of Islam - Islamophobia - and wanted to discredit the Qur'an for that reason.

We can only speculate.

[LibraryLady]

I've split off the name calling posts, or most of them, and remind everyone to follow the rules of civility and attacking the argument. Thank you.

[FireGarden]

Hang on, do you think Brigstock's commentary is bigoted? Just that. Brigstock is critisizing the fact that religion is behind much of the violence in the world. Is that criticism bigotry?

Well it's more of a rant than a commentary. And performed in a context of being stand-up comedy. He also says that most religious people are "moderate, nice and reasonable".

Do I think that he really believes that Muslims are "beardy and veily" or that all celebate priests are gay/pedos? No. He's being "in your face" -- or whatever the young people call it today! But, that said, I don't know anything else about him.

I don't think that claiming a link between religion and violence is automatically bigotry. It's a view that's been debated on this forum many times, here's a recent one on the "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" quote:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111778

I didn't see anyone referring to TG as a bigot. So the issue can certainly be debated without that angle.

I don't believe that religion is the root of all evil and I've never claimed that it is. That's just a strawman. I'm saying that religion is often behind much of the evil that does go on.

The FLDS church hands out girls as young as 12 to old men so they can rape them. That's done in the name of religion. In America a person can legally neglect their children to the point of death so long as the neglect is done under the auspices of religious healing (http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/national_clearinghouse_bibliography_religious_immu nity.htm).

I think that such religious nonsense is ripe for outspoken, firm criticism. I think we should stand up and say BS. Just because a person believes that an invisible man in the sky said it is ok DOESN'T make it ok.

I'm not going to sit here and mealy mouth declare "well, that isn't true". **** that!

What's mealy mouthed about telling people their religious faith is wrong and that their children should be given the medicine they need? What's mealy mouthed about telling people they are wrong to "marry off" their 12 year old daughters?

Please read the thread I linked above. There are some interesting points regarding when good people will do bad things. You may be of the opinion that religion is a big factor, and I would agree that the world would be a better place without religion. But how to convince those that don't agree? Accuse them of complicity in crimes they find abhorrent? I don't see how that's going to be convincing.

How does it help Shirin Ebadi, who you say is on your side, to declare that Islam is sexist? Will that make her give up her faith? She's heard it already. She's still a Muslim.

My questions aren't rhetorical either. I would like an answer. You say she is on your side. What are you willing to do to help her?

[RandFan]

Well it's more of a rant than a commentary. And performed in a context of being stand-up comedy. He also says that most religious people are "moderate, nice and reasonable". And I would agree with that though I'm not sure why that is an important point for you.

Do I think that he really believes that Muslims are "beardy and veily" or that all celebate priests are gay/pedos? No. He's being "in your face" -- or whatever the young people call it today! But, that said, I don't know anything else about him. He's criticizing religion for being the root of violence. That's it. No need for any deep analysis. Brigstock is no different from any of those of us who are labeled bigots for simply criticizing Islam.

I don't think that claiming a link between religion and violence is automatically bigotry.Then I don't know what your complaint is and I have no idea whatsoever why some people in this thread have labeled others bigots. And when asked over and over and over no evidence of bigotry is provided.

I guess the label of bigotry is a convenient one to be used when a person has no rebuttal.

What's mealy mouthed about telling people their religious faith is wrong and that their children should be given the medicine they need? What's mealy mouthed about telling people they are wrong to "marry off" their 12 year old daughters?Well, that's all we are doing. It's wrong for people to kill other people in the name of Islam. It's wrong for Muslims to hate homosexuals. It's wrong for women to be oppressed for a religion.

Please read the thread I linked above. There are some interesting points regarding when good people will do bad things. You may be of the opinion that religion is a big factor, and I would agree that the world would be a better place without religion. But how to convince those that don't agree? Accuse them of complicity in crimes they find abhorrent? I don't see how that's going to be convincing. I'm not sure what the best method is. I know that keeping silent isn't helping. Telling people it's wrong to keep medicines from their children is not likely to get them to give medicine to their children. So what do we do? Keep our mouths shut? No. We speak out against it. It's wrong. Hopefully if enough people stand up and admit that it is wrong then there will be a change in the laws.

One of the key problems is that those who are committing atrocities think that they are doing so with the blessing of most in their faith. If enough people stood up to these thugs it could very well make a difference.

How does it help Shirin Ebadi, who you say is on your side, to declare that Islam is sexist? Will that make her give up her faith? She's heard it already. She's still a Muslim.I don't want her to stop being a Muslim.



I'm not anti-Islam.
I don't hate Muslims.
I believe in freedom of choice and to live and let live.
I don't advocate the dissolution of religion in general or Islam in particular....When those who practice Islam do so without beating their wives or hating homosexuals or blowing things up then I'm fine with that.

FG, please, if there is something on that list that you don't understand please let me know.

My questions aren't rhetorical either. I would like an answer. You say she is on your side. What are you willing to do to help her? I'm standing up to say that Muslim oppression of women is wrong. I'm not burying my head in the sand afraid to speak out because of fear of political correctness. I've been saying so for some time. Thing is, you know this. You've read what I've written. The more important question is, what are you doing?

[Mycroft]

You are the one immitating his madness by insisting on working out the meaning of a phrase by taking it apart into smaller phrases. Arabs are Semitic. But anti-Semitism isn't about hating Arabs or Semitic people in general -- it means hating Jews.

The phrase is badly coined, but we are stuck with it.

Interestingly, the history of that term is that it was coined to make it seem scientific and therefore more acceptable. By contrast, this new term seems to be used to make certain social discussions less acceptable.


Ditto Islamophobia. It isn't a phobia, but the phrase is coined and has a meaning other than the sum of its parts.



You may have a point.
Coin one, let's see if catchs on.

I would suggest we utilize the terms we already have. Racism and bigotry seem to cover everything negative that needs to be covered.

[Mycroft]

Were the cartoons about Mohammed, or were they about Islam? What does it mean to have a founder of a religion dressed with a bomb for a turban? Does that say nothing about the religion?

That's the problem with "art" -- it's difficult to interpret.


I think many people might equate Islam with bombs. I think the reason is that a lot of Muslims build bombs in the name of Islam.

I think a lot of Muslims absolutely believe that bombs have nothing to do with Islam. I think these people might be motivated, in part, to repudiate and condemn those that build bombs, once they're confronted with how it makes them appear to others.

In a very similar way, I believe cartoons involving Catholic priests and child molestation might motivate Catholics to clean up their church, even though such a cartoon might be perceived as an attack on all Catholics.

[Rufo]

Interestingly, the history of that term is that it was coined to make it seem scientific and therefore more acceptable. By contrast, this new term seems to be used to make certain social discussions less acceptable.
I'm not quite sure about if your descriptions of the origins of the term 'antisemitism' are correct, although unlike Islamophobia it was clearly embraced widely by antisemites once, probably at least partly due to its scientific connotations.

However, consider the historical context for the words. The reason a word suggesting fear or hatred of a certain group is no longer as widely used by those guilty of it is partly due to the history of concepts such as antisemitism. Regardless to why or how the words were coined, antisemitism and Islamophobia are misused in much the same way today.

I would suggest we utilize the terms we already have. Racism and bigotry seem to cover everything negative that needs to be covered.
True, bigotry covers much, but there's no reason not to coin new terms to define subcategories as far as I can see. Racism is one of those. Islamophobia is another.

[FireGarden]

And I would agree with that though I'm not sure why that is an important point for you.

It's part of the context of what Brigstocke was saying. Part of his opinion. Did you want me to comment on only part of the recording?

Then I don't know what your complaint is and I have no idea whatsoever why some people in this thread have labeled others bigots. And when asked over and over and over no evidence of bigotry is provided.

My problem is when people attribute blame where it is not due. You can't hold all religious people accountable for how some religious people act when their children are ill.

I'm not sure what the best method is. I know that keeping silent isn't helping. Telling people it's wrong to keep medicines from their children is not likely to get them to give medicine to their children. So what do we do? Keep our mouths shut? No. We speak out against it. It's wrong. Hopefully if enough people stand up and admit that it is wrong then there will be a change in the laws.

Yes. We speak out against it. Brilliant.
What I don't want to do is blame people who aren't responsible.

If you blame religion everytime a JW refuses a blood transfusion, then you also blame these people:
The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood
http://www.ajwrb.org/about.shtml

They are still JWs.
What sense does it make to include them in your condemnation?

There has been some change in policy, btw:
http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml

Next time the subject comes up, you can provide the above link. That way JWs might learn about other JWs who are trying to change policy. A step in the right direction.

Or you can just blame religion, after which most religious people would just switch off from you.

I'm standing up to say that Muslim oppression of women is wrong.

When you make comments like "the behavior stems from the religion",
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692625&postcount=81

it seems to me that you blame religion for the oppression. I don't see how that helps her -- she's religious.

I'm not burying my head in the sand afraid to speak out because of fear of political correctness. I've been saying so for some time. Thing is, you know this. You've read what I've written. The more important question is, what are you doing?

I'm also saying that oppression of women is wrong. But I'm not blaming religion, because I can see religion on both sides of the debate.

And, as above, I provide Shirin Ebadi as a source when the topic comes up -- spreading a viewpoint that is worth listening to.

[FireGarden]

I would suggest we utilize the terms we already have. Racism and bigotry seem to cover everything negative that needs to be covered.

I'm not paying for that! I asked you coin a term. :)

But you do have a point.

[RandFan]

My problem is when people attribute blame where it is not due. You can't hold all religious people accountable for how some religious people act when their children are ill. Is that what you think Brigestock was doing?

Yes. We speak out against it. Brilliant.
What I don't want to do is blame people who aren't responsible. No one is blaming anyone. We are criticizing behavior and the religion that gives rise to that behavior.

What sense does it make to include them in your condemnation?I don't condemn them. I criticize the idiotic ideas that lead to the suffering of children. I wasn't talking about JW's by the way.

Or you can just blame religion, after which most religious people would just switch off from you. Most people will just switch off no matter what. This is the argument that was made to civil rights activists. Don't offend. Be nice. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. If enough people stand up and say religious healing laws are insane then it can make a difference.

When you make comments like "the behavior stems from the religion",
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692625&postcount=81

it seems to me that you blame religion for the oppression. I don't see how that helps her -- she's religious.I'm not going to lie. I'm sorry if the truth hurts her. I don't see the point of being mealy mouth about this. The religion is wrong.

I'm also saying that oppression of women is wrong. But I'm not blaming religion, because I can see religion on both sides of the debate. To the extent that religion is responsible, and it is, I blame it.

And, as above, I provide Shirin Ebadi as a source when the topic comes up -- spreading a viewpoint that is worth listening to. I'll listen to her. However, it's not secularism that indoctrinates young women to wear Burkas. It's not secularism that marries off young women to men they have never met. It's not secularism that teaches it's ok to use corporal punishment on women.

Qur'an 4:34: Most English translations of Verse 34 say that a rebellious woman should initially be admonished. Then she is to be left alone and cut off from sexual activity with her husband. Finally, if she does not end her rebelliousness, she is to be beaten. Some translations state that only light corporal punishment is to be used. However, if they do end their rebelliousness and obey, then they are to be forgiven and not further harmed or harassed. It is appropriate to hold religion responsible for such nonsense and be sure, it is nonsense.

There is nothing inherently different between men and women that would cause anyone to think that women should be treated in such a manner. This is stone age (bronze age/iron age? hell, it was a long time ago) sentiment. We are now in the 21st century and some people want to actually pretend that this isn't backward thinking nonsense. And you get upset with me for criticizing such lunacy?

Good for Shirin Ebadi that she is a feminist. I wish her luck. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there is nothing at all to criticize in Islam because Ebadi is a feminist.

[FireGarden]

Is that what you think Brigestock was doing?

No. I think it is what you are doing.

No one is blaming anyone. We are criticizing behavior and the religion that gives rise to that behavior.

But you're not.
You're criticising religion -- including the religion which tries to change the behaviour in question.

I don't condemn them. I criticize the idiotic ideas that lead to the suffering of children. I wasn't talking about JW's by the way.

You were talking about children and medication. JWs and blood transfusion is related enough.

Most people will just switch off no matter what.

Not in my experience.

This is the argument that was made to civil rights activists. Don't offend. Be nice. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. If enough people stand up and say religious healing laws are insane then it can make a difference.

What did you think of my idea, then? Linking to JWs who want changes in JW policy on blood transfusion.

I'm not going to lie. I'm sorry if the truth hurts her. I don't see the point of being mealy mouth about this. The religion is wrong.

To the extent that religion is responsible, and it is, I blame it.

How are people to know the extent of your criticism if you don't make the distinction? Yes, we've talked and you've clarified your position. But I think you'll find more success in debates on this kind of topic if you make it clear from the beginning that the target of your criticism isn't the whole of religion. Fewer people will switch off.

I'll listen to her. However, it's not secularism that indoctrinates young women to wear Burkas. It's not secularism that marries off young women to men they have never met. It's not secularism that teaches it's ok to use corporal punishment on women.

It is appropriate to hold religion responsible for such nonsense and be sure, it is nonsense.

There is nothing inherently different between men and women that would cause anyone to think that women should be treated in such a manner. This is stone age (bronze age/iron age? hell, it was a long time ago) sentiment. We are now in the 21st century and some people want to actually pretend that this isn't backward thinking nonsense. And you get upset with me for criticizing such lunacy?

Good for Shirin Ebadi that she is a feminist. I wish her luck. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that there is nothing at all to criticize in Islam because Ebadi is a feminist.

Because religion is monlithic and unable to change?

I'm not going to go on repeating myself. When you criticise religion in the way you do, you do not in any way recognise the people within religion who are on your side. That seems irrational and counter-productive more than anything else.

[Darth Rotor]

I think there is a difference between Islamophobia and anti-Islamism, even if they often go hand in hand.

A person may be unreasonably afraid of Islam even when not in principle opposing Islamic movements that would appear less scary.

Another person may oppose all of Islam no matter how peaceful a Islamic movement may be.
Yep. It requires a bit more effort to deal with that, something more complex than one size fits all, which too few people contributing to this thread seem to be willing to exert. Glad you did. Glad UW keeps doing so.

DR

[RandFan]

No. I think it is what you are doing. In what possible way are we different? I think you are being inconsistent my friend.

But you're not. That is exactly what I'm doing.

You're criticizing religion -- including the religion which tries to change the behavior in question. No more and no less than Brigestock.

You were talking about children and medication. JWs and blood transfusion is related enough. That's fine, I wasn't talking about them.

Not in my experience.Your experience is markedly different than mine.

I had an email debate with James Randi a few years back. I suggested that we needed to do as you suggest. It's become quite clear to me since then that that approach is wrong.

What did you think of my idea, then? Linking to JWs who want changes in JW policy on blood transfusion. It is my hope that the criticism of religion well cause people to reform from within their religion.

How are people to know the extent of your criticism if you don't make the distinction? Yes, we've talked and you've clarified your position. But I think you'll find more success in debates on this kind of topic if you make it clear from the beginning that the target of your criticism isn't the whole of religion. Fewer people will switch off. Hey, there could be tactical changes to be made. I'm not completely against any suggestions as to specifics. I'm just very firm at the moment that we must criticize religion. I didn't always see it that way but after years of not criticizing religion and seeing that it has zero effect it has become clear to me that just like the civil rights movement it's going to take some social upheaval and there will likely be some hurt feelings.

We've got to be honest about this. The likelihood of changing the beliefs of adults is very, very slim. People have to be shook up. Consciences have to be raised. Many people will turn off. As they did when I was a kid in the 60's. If you had told me then that there would be a real chance that a black man would become president I would not have believed it. And I would have told you that the activists were going about it the wrong way. How did I know? Because I was raised in conservative household and community and I know that my friends and family were tuned off to it all.

But here we are. I'm campaigning for Obama. Doesn't that beat all. Criticizing the status quo at the time might have had short term losses but in the long run it paid off.

Because religion is monlithic and unable to change?? I don't know how to respond. I don't know what this has to do with what I've said. Could you clarify?

I'm not going to go on repeating myself. When you criticize religion in the way you do, you do not in any way recognise the people within religion who are on your side. That seems irrational and counter-productive more than anything else. In the way that I do? Bullocks. As Dawkins says, why is it ok to criticize political parties and not religion? Don't both have the potential to alienate? Isn't criticism the basis for enlightenment? Didn't Martin Luther criticize a religion? Didn't the reformers criticize? What was the basis for the reformation?

I reject your premise. I don't in a blanket manner criticize Islam. I criticize specific aspects. In the end, your criticism of mine is completely unfounded. It is up to those in the religion to attempt to reform their religion like Shirin Ebadi or to leave it all together like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I don't mind either way but I'll not stop criticizing because in the long it is the moral thing to do.

[Gurdur]

Because the behavior stems from the religion.


Really?
Then by your argument stoning stems from Judaism as a whole, polygamy from Mormonism, and burning at the stake from Christianity, and all those religions are bad, bad, bad, because they encourage stoning, burning, and polygamy *.

Oh wait, obvious problems of clashes with reality here. The same reality that means your argument is crud.

________________________

* Polygamy IS bad. Very, very, very bad. One wife to nag you and criticise you all the time is more than enough; four wives is just asking for a premature death from stress.

[RandFan]

Really?
Then by your argument stoning stems from Judaism as a whole, polygamy from Mormonism, and burning at the stake from Christianity, and all those religions are bad, bad, bad, because they encourage stoning, burning, and polygamy *.

Oh wait, obvious problems of clashes with reality here. The same reality that means your argument is crud. I don't understand your point. "as a whole"? When did I say "as a whole".

In any event, are you seriously saying there is no link between behavior and religion? I'm not sure many people would by that. I know I don't. Stoning is happening today and I gotta tell you it's not so much the atheists that are doing it.

[Mojo]

Any criticism and/or skepticism or blasphemy of islam.


See also "homeophobia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/19/comment.health)", which appears to be defined as any criticism of the beliefs of idiots.

[FireGarden]

In what possible way are we different? I think you are being inconsistent my friend.

That is exactly what I'm doing.

No more and no less than Brigestock.

Except that Brigstocke is a stand-up comic. Are you going to take him literally? I don't. Like I said, I know nothing else about him.

Your experience is markedly different than mine.

I had an email debate with James Randi a few years back. I suggested that we needed to do as you suggest. It's become quite clear to me since then that that approach is wrong.

It's wrong to post links informing people that there are JWs who challenge the policy of blood transfusions? That was my suggestion.

My policy is not about coddling religion. My policy is to put down the scatter-gun and talk about the huge, vast, really, really big thing called religion in a way that makes clear it is varied.

It is my hope that the criticism of religion well cause people to reform from within their religion.

Err... Like the examples I gave?
Why not help them out by acknowledging them in debates?

Hey, there could be tactical changes to be made. I'm not completely against any suggestions as to specifics. I'm just very firm at the moment that we must criticize religion. I didn't always see it that way but after years of not criticizing religion and seeing that it has zero effect it has become clear to me that just like the civil rights movement it's going to take some social upheaval and there will likely be some hurt feelings.

You spent years not criticising religion. So who did you criticise when you heard about JWs refusing blood transfusions -- even on behalf of their children? I would criticise those JWs who do so, those that support them doing so and the specific religious justification given.

In the way that I do? Bullocks. As Dawkins says, why is it ok to criticize political parties and not religion? Don't both have the potential to alienate? Isn't criticism the basis for enlightenment? Didn't Martin Luther criticize a religion? Didn't the reformers criticize? What was the basis for the reformation?

Yes, criticise. But how to criticise?
The examples I gave you were examples of critics. The JWs I linked to are critics. Shirin Ebadi is a critic.

When you criticise political parties, do you say things like: "Political parties encourage racism: just look at the KKK and the BNP. It's not the leprechauns and pixies who encourage racism. It's political parties. I'm not going to shut up and pretend that racism isn't promoted by political parties. Political parties have been starting wars for 1000's of years. Political parties have rigged elections. I'm not going to coddle political parties because people need to be shook up so that they can change things from within."

And my response would be: If your problem is with racism, then address the racists. Why talk about political parties, in general, causing racism? Wouldn't it make more sense to mention, at least, the political parties who are against racism?

After which, you acknowledge that there are political parties who are against racism. But then you go on complaining -- because, if someone mentions the parties RandFan agrees with, that's like slapping him on the wrist for criticising political parties.

[Undesired Walrus]

Uncle Sam, who is the definition of America. Not a certain section of America, but the definition of America. Uncle Sam is all of America.

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/cartoon20070516.gif

How is this not by your definition, Americanophobia? "Hey" say the far-left in America. "Many of us are trying to stop the US's dependence on oil!". One pipes up, "The cartoonist is Americanophobic and offensive towards Americans", and we all laugh. Rightly.

ETA: Darth, I very much respect you, thanks.

[Undesired Walrus]

And my response would be: If your problem is with racism, then address the racists. Why talk about political parties, in general, causing racism? Wouldn't it make more sense to mention, at least, the political parties who are against racism?

Why do you compare all the political parties in the world with one religion? Wouldn't it be smarter to compare different political parties with different religions?

I don't care one bit if the BNP have a few members in it who try to "Change the way their political party is". They are still members of a group who has a holocaust denier as their leader and a founder who calls "Mein Kampf my bible".

The problem is with this political party, not with political parties in general.

The BNP is a racist political party, but not all its members (Although I'm sure most) are racists. I view Islam as a sexist religion, but not all its followers are. What's the difference here?

When one says "The BNP are reforming" why can I say "Not when Nick Griffin still denies the holocaust it doesn't" yet when one says "British Islam is reforming" I cannot say "Not while the head of the Muslim council of Britain is Iqbal Sacranie, once saying that "Death is too easy" for Salman Rushdie"?

[mrbaracuda]

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/cartoon20070516.gif

Heh, poor Uncle Sam. I laughed. :D

[Rufo]

When one says "The BNP are reforming" why can I say "Not when Nick Griffin still denies the holocaust it doesn't" yet when one says "British Islam is reforming" I cannot say "Not while the head of the Muslim council of Britain is Iqbal Sacranie, once saying that "Death is too easy" for Salman Rushdie"?
You might consider this a nitpick, but Sacranie is not the head of the Muslim council of Britain and has not been for almost two years. I think it's relevant, since there appears to have been quite a lot of reforming going on since he left the position.

Griffin, on the other hand, is still chairman of the BNP. To be fair, though, I don't think they'd have much more of my sympathy if he resigned.

[FireGarden]

I've always thought of Uncle Sam as being the government. And look what google turns up:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/26/news/economy/fed.jobs.fortune/index.htm

"Uncle Sam's hiring spree
The federal government is hoping to hire almost 200,000 people between now and 2009."

So I'm not alone.

The BNP is a racist political party, but not all its members (Although I'm sure most) are racists. I view Islam as a sexist religion, but not all its followers are.

Back to the definition you cited, category 1: Islam as a monolithic bloc. You treat it that way.

When one says "The BNP are reforming" why can I say "Not when Nick Griffin still denies the holocaust it doesn't" yet when one says "British Islam is reforming" I cannot say "Not while the head of the Muslim council of Britain is Iqbal Sacranie, once saying that "Death is too easy" for Salman Rushdie"?

There is plenty of Islam not in need of reform. Shirin Ebadi is as much in the 21st century as you are. And she's under the umbrella you're p*ssing on.

[Undesired Walrus]

At least she knows how to avoid getting wet.

She can avoid getting wet.

[Texas]

What exactly is Islamophobia these days? I see the word getting tossed around a lot since 9/11, but what is the definition?

If, for example, a politician says on a round table discussion on CNN that the Quran is a terrible piece of literature and anyone who believes it is the best book ever written is seriously deluding themselves, is that classified as Islamophobia?

I hate the term "phobia" added onto group names as a means of conveying a somehow irrational fear of that group leading to discrimination of said group. Islam says it is a Religion of Peace except when it's not. Once the world sees, through action, that the Islamic leaders really mean that then a person being a Muslim will be viewed no differently than a Christian, Hindu, Jew or Atheist. You will always have those that hate each of those classifications but at this point in history it is Islam that is seen as flying the banner of terroism.

[Darth Rotor]

I really wouldn't give a damn if I was completely wrong and people like you are consistent and think all religious criticism is bigoted.
FWIW, all religious criticism is not bigoted, or we wouldn't have Protestants, at all.

Martin Luther was big on religious criticism.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I've split off the name calling posts, or most of them, and remind everyone to follow the rules of civility and attacking the argument. Thank you.
Just for that, I am going to pour beer down your throat. :D
I guess the label of bigotry is a convenient one to be used when a person has no rebuttal.
You'd have to shut down the R & P forum if that were true.

Oh, wait, there's an idea, who'd have an opinion on that?

OK, OK, I'll stop with the PWD.

DR

[FireGarden]

At least she knows how to avoid getting wet.

She can avoid getting wet.

How does that let you off the hook?
And remind me why you think Muslims have voted for female leaders. What did you say before? Those Muslims were ignoring Islam.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3691453&postcount=45

[RandFan]

Except that Brigstocke is a stand-up comic. Are you going to take him literally? I don't. Like I said, I know nothing else about him. "Literally"? He's criticizing religion. If he just wanted to tell a joke he could do it without potentially offending people. Even he admits that he will get letters. There's a point to his humor and it's that religion is the basis for a lot of the violence in the world and it's wrong.

My policy is not about coddling religion. My policy is to put down the scatter-gun and talk about the huge, vast, really, really big thing called religion in a way that makes clear it is varied.If and when Muslims, by and large, embrace western values like women's rights, gay rights, etc., then I'll perhaps be a bit more specific. As it is we have a big problem and I don't see any problem with criticizing Islam. It's not yet had a Reformation or been through an enlightenment. Let's see if we can get it there. We might have to nail a proclamation on its door.

Err... Like the examples I gave?
Why not help them out by acknowledging them in debates? Yes, and the Civil rights movement could have been kept to nice quiet teas. Sorry, the whole idea is to shake things up. In the 60's it was rock and roll, protests, pickets, marches, harsh rhetoric, etc..

You spent years not criticising religion. So who did you criticise when you heard about JWs refusing blood transfusions -- even on behalf of their children? I would criticise those JWs who do so, those that support them doing so and the specific religious justification given. I'm not sure why you have a thing for JW's. I'm happy to criticize them but I never took an active role in doing so. Yes, of course, let's criticize them. It's a dumb, idiotic stance.

Yes, criticise. But how to criticise?
The examples I gave you were examples of critics. The JWs I linked to are critics. Shirin Ebadi is a critic. Cool, I'm glad they are there doing what they are doing. There is more than one way to accomplish the goals. I don't know why everyone has to march lock step with your sensibilities. I don't think that is the way to get things done. I don't think everyone will respond to Shirin Ebadi. I think it is going to take a hell of a lot more than that.

When you criticise political parties, do you say things like: "Political parties encourage racism: just look at the KKK and the BNP. It's not the leprechauns and pixies who encourage racism. It's political parties. I'm not going to shut up and pretend that racism isn't promoted by political parties. Political parties have been starting wars for 1000's of years. Political parties have rigged elections. I'm not going to coddle political parties because people need to be shook up so that they can change things from within." Yes. I'm a registered Republican and I have criticized my party for racism. Damn straight. The Republican party embraced racist Southern Democrats for political purposes. The Republican party was the party of Lincoln but it has since sold its soul for political expediency. I think that is wrong and I critisize my party for it. The Republican party has played the race card on a number of occasions and I'm more than happy to criticize them for such.

I'll say it again, damn straight.

And my response would be: If your problem is with racism, then address the racists. Why talk about political parties, in general, causing racism? Wouldn't it make more sense to mention, at least, the political parties who are against racism? I think we should honestly and frankly discuss the truth. What's wrong with that? The Republican party very much deserves criticism as well as the Democratic party.

Religion on the other hand is far more ripe for criticism. It's dogmatic and very slow to change.