Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[David Mo]

Because you treat them from the assumption that they are emotionally and intelectually not able to differentiate between attacks on them and attacks on some idea they hold dear. And such a character flaw is usually something i only find unproblematic in minors; with adults it is irritating at best.

To make you understand, presume for a second Amnesty International should refrain from attacking ideas i hold dear. So that if i say to Amnesty: "The way you publically act and argue, you attack this idea dear to me in this way and in this way, etc. , please do not do it."

Should then Amnesty realy say: "Ok, you are just 1 out of 7 billion, but since we follow David Mo's suggestion not to attack ideas hold dear by somebody, we will adjust as follows: ..."
Is that what you suggest? That due my personal sensibilities an entire organization should adjust it's approach to some matter?

Which is compared to one or several murders a less important crime.
Violations of independece of justice happen regularly even in states with awareness about the importance of an independent justice (it's just not regularly noticed).

1. The idea that men can dissociate their beliefs from their persons is yours, not mine. I think this is impossible both for adults and children. Therefore your last criticism doesn’t affect me.

2. Amnesty International never judges ideologies. They say that this warrants their independence of judgment. They attack only deeds and laws that violate Human Rights. Therefore I have nothing to tell to AI about the “attacks against Islam”.

3. I was not making a value judgment. I was only saying that the police massive killings in the Philippines are committed in a wide framework of general deterioration of democracy. Wider doesn’t means worse or better. It is a different level of categories.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I imagine most would have no difficulty expressing an opinion regarding German, Italian or Spanish fascism in the 1930s. Would discussing it mean, by necessity, falling into personal attacks or improperly sweeping rejections based on ethnicity? Alrighty, then.... So, we have ideologies, and we can observe they are associated with behaviors in real life. So now, what elements are common to any ideology when it results in violence? I suggest there are two main sources of such behavior: the actual canon, and human pride and fallibility in assuming "perfect" doctrines translate directly into "perfect" actions; i.e., that Big Truth confers absolute authority.

And there it is, the keyword-in-waiting: absolutism.

 

[Carn]

1. The idea that men can dissociate their beliefs from their persons is yours, not mine. I think this is impossible both for adults and children.

And your hold the opposite idea, that men cannot do this.

While you probably do not understand it, but your idea is the more fragile; for my idea to be true, it would be sufficient if a considerable number of adult humans are capable of what you call "dissociation"; for your idea to be true EVERY SINGLE one of the 5+ billion adult humans must be incapable of "dissociations".

As soon as a single human exists capable of that, your position is proven to be wrong.

Which reminds me, i am capable of what you claim is not possible and hence your argument is destroyed by evidence.

But i am also certain, you are not able to understand this.

2. Amnesty International never judges ideologies.

False.

Here AI launched a campaign against racism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kate-allen/amnesty-racism-after-brexit_b_10773972.html
"Why Amnesty Has Launched an Emergency Campaign on Racism"
and this campaign certainly includes also activity against racist ideologies.

Does your concern about not offending people by attacking ideas also cover the ideas of racism?
Cause when one calls racism wrong, racists might perceive this attack on their belief system as a personal attack and you are supposedly against doing that.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I imagine most would have no difficulty expressing an opinion regarding German, Italian or Spanish fascism in the 1930s. Would discussing it mean, by necessity, falling into personal attacks or improperly sweeping rejections based on ethnicity? Alrighty, then.... So, we have ideologies, and we can observe they are associated with behaviors in real life. So now, what elements are common to any ideology when it results in violence? I suggest there are two main sources of such behavior: the actual canon, and human pride and fallibility in assuming "perfect" doctrines translate directly into "perfect" actions; i.e., that Big Truth confers absolute authority.

And there it is, the keyword-in-waiting: absolutism.

Fascism has as a central tenet a struggle of annihilation between semi-arbitrarily defined "peoples". You can absolutely find ideologies of struggle in many other areas (it is after all the literal meaning of "jihad"), but fascism posits struggle and destruction as an end in itself. Even the ultimately monstrous ideologies of colonialism and imperialism tended to have some idea of "spreading civilization". Fascism in its original form was, I think, a rather unique reaction to the advent of modernity, so nihilistic it was bound to collapse on itself.

Very few ideologies completely prohibit subjugations - arguably most modern ones presuppose it.

Whatever role Islam had in historic conflicts, it is clear that it was almost universally exaggerated in hindsight. "I consolidated power for comquest and glory in the name of Allah!" is a lot easier to sell than "I teamed up with Charlemagne/the Byzantine Emperor/the Tsar/some other infidel to usurp my brother's throne and steal his wife" or whatever they might've been up to.

 

[David Mo]

And your hold the opposite idea, that men cannot do this.
(...)
As soon as a single human exists capable of that, your position is proven to be wrong.
Which reminds me, i am capable of what you claim is not possible and hence your argument is destroyed by evidence.

Not so quickly. Put on hold a moment your chants of victory.

Maybe a single one among 5 billion of people can make an effort and to consider that someone that says that his ideas are stupid and immoral is not offending his person. This is the exception that confirm the norm. Furthermore, when he will lower his guard, he will show ungry himself. This will show that he is really upset with the criticism.
See yourself:

But i am also certain, you are not able to understand this.

Now you begin to insult my mental capacities. This shows that you are offended by my criticism of your ideas, even thought I was trying to be polite with them.
See: You are not the exception of the norm.

False.
Here AI launched a campaign against racism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kate-allen/amnesty-racism-after-brexit_b_10773972.html
"Why Amnesty Has Launched an Emergency Campaign on Racism"
and this campaign certainly includes also activity against racist ideologies.

After fifteen years working with AI I think that I know well its principles. Don’t make it so easy for me, please:

“Amnesty International has no political affiliation, endorses no political party, accepts no funds from governments or any political party. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the protection of the human rights involved in each case, regardless of the ideology of the government, opposition forces or the beliefs of the individual.” (From Frequent Asked Questions in AI official website; bold letters are mine; more information here).

Your question was directed about the AI’s opinion about Islam. A religious creed, a belief and an ideology.
Is it clear now?
NOTE: I consider that racism or totalitarianism are sets of ideas included in particular ideologies. AI denounces this kind of ideas because they are contradictory with the UN Declaration of Human Rights —that is the reference text for them— and are a direct violation of this declaration. Therefore they establish a difference between ideas (reprehensible) and ideologies (restrain of judgment). Is it clear for you now? Of course, this can led us to the debate on whether this declaration is ideology or not, but this is a subject far from our issue. In any case AI doesn’t enter in the problem of Islam.
This is a tactical attitude, of course, more restricted that mine.

Does your concern about not offending people by attacking ideas also cover the ideas of racism?
Cause when one calls racism wrong, racists might perceive this attack on their belief system as a personal attack and you are supposedly against doing that.

Of course not. I am not worried at all if my criticism offends a racist. I reserve my respect for those who deserve it. I think that I have said this in the beginning of our debate.

 

[Carn]

Not so quickly. Put on hold a moment your chants of victory.

Maybe a single one among 5 billion of people can make an effort and to consider that someone that says that his ideas are stupid and immoral is not offending his person. This is the exception that confirm the norm. Furthermore, when he will lower his guard, he will show ungry himself. This will show that he is really upset with the criticism.
See yourself:


Now you begin to insult my mental capacities. This shows that you are offended by my criticism of your ideas, even thought I was trying to be polite with them.
See: You are not the exception of the norm.

It was not an insult but a prognosis based on countless discussions with people making sweeping declaration about all individuals of large groups of diverse humans; it's often (not always) that who offers such a claim has problems understanding that a single exception destroys the claim.

But maybe you are one of the few exceptions to that experience. Though it is unlikely as you seem to think your claim is validated by suppesedly being able to argue about one counter-example presented, while potentially there might be millions or billions more.

Therefore they establish a difference between ideas (reprehensible) and ideologies (restrain of judgment). Is it clear for you now?

Yes, if you think it violates human rights it is not an ideology/religion/whatever else is beyond criticism and otherwise its not an ideology/religion/whatever.

Which means you think that Islamic scipture does not include any violation or incitement to violation of human rights.

And which also means you operate with definitions distinct from the usual ones used for the terms.

I reserve my respect for those who deserve it.

Which means your personal opinions should be the criteria, which ideas are ok to attack and which ideas are off-limits.

 

[David Mo]

It was not an insult but a prognosis based on countless discussions with people making sweeping declaration about all individuals of large groups of diverse humans;

To say that someone is not able to understand something that you have tried to explain several times is to cast doubt on his mental capacity. This is an insult

Yes, if you think it violates human rights it is not an ideology/religion/whatever else is beyond criticism and otherwise its not an ideology/religion/whatever.

We were not speaking about what I think, but on what AI says.
Anyway, I don't understand your logic. Restraining your opinion about X don't suppose any proposition or value judgment about X. This is the caution principle of epokhē. Many reasons for this are possible. AI epokhē is tactical and depends of the conception and limits of his mission.

And which also means you operate with definitions distinct from the usual ones used for the terms.

I don't think so. "AI doesn't make any judgement about religions or ideologies in general". Don't you understand this?

Which means your personal opinions should be the criteria, which ideas are ok to attack and which ideas are off-limits.

I have not other than personal opinions to put here, They can be more or less reasonable. And this is the only thing that matters.

 

[Carn]

I don't think so. "AI doesn't make any judgement about religions or ideologies in general". Don't you understand this?

You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?

You're equivocating fuzzy terms like "ideology" in lieu of honest analysis.

 

[David Mo]

You understand that white supremacy is an ideology?

You agree that AI is against white supremacy?

You understand that thereby they make a judgement about that ideology?

First of all: let us distinguish what I say from what AI says.

Now I am explaining the mission of AI:
In order to be impartial, AI never evaluates any political, religious or ideological doctrine. You never will found a global disqualification of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, liberalism or communism in an official AI paper. Therefore it is useless to question whether AI considers the Koran as a relevant or essential source of terrorism or not. AI never will pronounce itself about this.

I hope that this be clear for you. If you find some AI’s criticism of the Koran or the Bible I would be absolutely amazed. What AI can criticize is the consequences of some interpretation of the Koran, but I doubt that you can find something like this. They are extremely scrupulous on what they call their “impartiality”. (NOTE: I ceased to be an active member of AI four years ago. Things may have changed in those years but I doubt it. What I am saying are the basical principles of this NGO).

Now, your criticism:
You think that AI is incoherent when they attack racism, because you think that racism is an ideology.
AI doesn’t consider racism as an “ideology” or, at least it is not a political, religious or philosophical ideology in the same sense that communism or Christianity are. Racism is an idea that directly attacks some articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 2, specially: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”). It is a component of diverse ideologies in the wider sense,not an ideology by itself. Therefore AI may consider itself impartial of any ideology, but would be belligerent when a particular ideology includes a racist point in its principles. In the case that diverse ideologies draw different consequences from the same text, AI only adopts a position on these consequences.

If you want to know my own position, ask me and leave AI in peace.

NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.

 

[Foster Zygote]

From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?

That hasn't been my impression at all. I have not observed any trend among atheists to be selectively less critical of Islam than Christianity, or any other religion. Due to the fact that most of my experience is with atheists in Christian majority populations, I have observed a tendency for many people to characterize Islam as having some intrinsic qualities that make it worse than Christianity. But I haven't seen anything that would lead me to draw that conclusion. The problems in the Muslim world all seem to me to have strong components of poverty, political and social instability, governmental oppression and warfare. When these sorts of problems have plagued Christian populations they have had similar results.

So if someone states that they think that Islam is more dangerous than Christianity because of some intrinsic quality within the doctrines and dogma of the religion itself, then I will argue against that. But I think that any general religious criticism that can be fairly leveled against Christianity can also be fairly leveled against Islam. In my experience, it's not so much that atheists have treated Islam with greater kindness than Christianity, but they have rather pointed out when others have spoken as though Islam is any more harmful than Christianity. It's true that the Muslim world has greater problems than the Christian world at this time, but that has actually been the reverse in the past and has nothing to do with Christianity being the lesser of two evils.

 

[Carn]

Now, your criticism:
You think that AI is incoherent when they attack racism, because you think that racism is an ideology.

...

If you want to know my own position, ask me and leave AI in peace.

NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.

My latest criticism was only, that AI and you yourself use some words with a meaning DIFFERENT from the usual meaning.

E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
"White supremacy or white supremacism IS a racist IDEOLOGY"

Which by the way is fine; i am used to having different words different meaning in different context and by different people.

But it does not make one look good, if one seems to be completely unaware about other regular use of a word and unaware about what definitions a word has in usual sources.

At least i understand now, why texts by human rights organizations so often seem to be somewhat strange; its just that i make the error to presume their words have the usual meaning; thank you for that.

@TubbaBlubba

I am far more capable of honest analysis than you are, cause i do not care one way or another what the result of such analysis is.

It's just that my honest analysis highlights in your worldview certain contradictions/inconsistencies; which i try to understand by asking you rather simple and stupid questions, cause otherwise you will not notice them as you have found complicated ways to ignore the inconsistencies/contradictions; but of course you avoid questions; but me asking simple questions makes you think that i am the stupid one in this discussion.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You're getting hung up by the fact that AI criticizes something called an "ideology" in one context (that you found by entering a few keywords into google in hope of a link to support your argument), where as DM said that they do not criticize "political or religious ideology or doctrine". You're ignoring the fact that "ideology" does not mean the exact same thing in those contexts. Sometimes you must step beyond dictionary definitions and look at the broader implications of a statement.

Amnesty does not, for example, criticize HR violations by dictatorships more harshly than democracies, nor does it criticize Muslim or Socialist countries more harshly than Capitalist or Christian ones. It exacts criticism based solely on individual human rights. It is perfectly consistent for them to criticize white supremacy, as it is literally defined by violation of the rights of non-whites. But it would not criticize violations by white supremacists more harshly than violations by any other group. It looks at the violations itself. In this sense, AI does not criticize WS as an ideology.

This is honestly not a difficult idea to grasp.

 

[David Mo]

My latest criticism was only, that AI and you yourself use some words with a meaning DIFFERENT from the usual meaning.
E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
"White supremacy or white supremacism IS a racist IDEOLOGY"

Which by the way is fine; i am used to having different words different meaning in different context and by different people.

I didn’t know that Wikipedia was the authority that decides the true meaning of words. Anyway, in Wikipedia’s entry Ideology you can see how many different meanings has the word “ideology”. It is not worth that we start a discussion on the subject. We are off-topic for some time now. Nevertheless I have explained you why AI makes a distinction between condemning racism and condemning other ideologies as Islam, Christianity, Communism or Liberalism. It seems that you overlook this:

AI doesn’t consider racism as an “ideology” or, at least it is not a political, religious or philosophical ideology in the same sense that communism or Christianity are. Racism is an idea that directly attacks some articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 2, specially: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”). (…) Therefore AI may consider itself impartial of any ideology, but would be belligerent when a particular ideology includes a racist point in its principles. In the case that diverse ideologies draw different consequences from the same text, AI only adopts a position on these consequences.

The distinction seems clear and consistent.

But it does not make one look good, if one seems to be completely unaware about other regular use of a word and unaware about what definitions a word has in usual sources.

Wikipedia again?

At least i understand now, why texts by human rights organizations so often seem to be somewhat strange; its just that i make the error to presume their words have the usual meaning; thank you for that.

I don’t know how a unique mention in a single paper of an idea that you consider “ideology” can turn into a global disqualification of all NGOs. This is disproportionated and lacking of any logic. You don’t like NGOs, is it not?

NOTE: “White supremacism” is another word for the same concept of “white racism”.

Of course, because supremacism is the idea that something is superior to other, and this is exactly what means “racism”. And white is white, as long as Wikipedia would not say the contrary.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Fascism has as a central tenet a struggle of annihilation between semi-arbitrarily defined "peoples". You can absolutely find ideologies of struggle in many other areas (it is after all the literal meaning of "jihad"), but fascism posits struggle and destruction as an end in itself. Even the ultimately monstrous ideologies of colonialism and imperialism tended to have some idea of "spreading civilization". Fascism in its original form was, I think, a rather unique reaction to the advent of modernity, so nihilistic it was bound to collapse on itself.

Very few ideologies completely prohibit subjugations - arguably most modern ones presuppose it.

Which is what makes any ideology, particularly when taken as absolute, a danger, especially if there are no, few, or poor mechanisms for peacefully dealing with opponents and/or non-adherents.

Whatever role Islam had in historic conflicts, it is clear that it was almost universally exaggerated in hindsight. "I consolidated power for comquest and glory in the name of Allah!" is a lot easier to sell than "I teamed up with Charlemagne/the Byzantine Emperor/the Tsar/some other infidel to usurp my brother's throne and steal his wife" or whatever they might've been up to.

<mega snip>... It's true that the Muslim world has greater problems than the Christian world at this time, but that has actually been the reverse in the past and has nothing to do with Christianity being the lesser of two evils.

The point to pursue is not the relative level of harm done, rather, what either the ideology itself provides as rationale for doing harm, or the way in which the ideology is considered as absolute. That is, that which explains how or why exposure to any given set of ideas might lead to terrorism, oppression, or denial of rights. For example, knowing about the ideas of Marie Le Pen or Richard Spencer provides clues to their potential behaviors, or those of their followers. Certainly, poverty, suffering or oppression are not statistically discriminating OTOH; that is, there is a very loose correlation between general socioeconomic condition and violent action.

To take an example from recent news, we have the clearly personal, and therefore psychological, motivations of the recent church shooter in Texas. No ideology, just "reasons." Commonly held as more mystifying is the motivation of the Las Vegas mass shooter, who left no rationale for his actions, possibly also personal. And then we have those who will plainly state the reason for action, as in the case of the motor vehicle terrorist attack in NYC.

Motivations, and therefore actions, are shaped by beliefs. This view is common to anthropology, psychology, sociology, and political science. For what, in broad terms, is culture, and why can behaviors be identified with one or another, such as sexual mores, or types and severity of punishments sanctioned by society for criminal acts?

In short, ideas matter. This is the foundation for any analysis of the relation between a set of beliefs and outcomes.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, but to understand how ideas affect society in any one period or context, you need to make a sound argument grounded in primary sources. Even so, there is a fundamental problem with this type of analysis - it all too frequently has to relay what someone wrote about what they thought someone thought about what they thought.

The commom assertions about Islam's special inherent violence are the oldest type of anti-Muslim rhetoric there is. They're not based in fact.

 

[Carn]

The distinction seems clear and consistent.

"seems" being the relevant word.

I don’t know how a unique mention in a single paper of an idea that you consider “ideology” can turn into a global disqualification of all NGOs. This is disproportionated and lacking of any logic. You don’t like NGOs, is it not?

You do not like the usual definition of words. I said something about "human rights organizations"; you presume that i am talking about NGOs; but these two words have usually distinct meanings.

Some human rights organizations aren't a NGO, e.g. UNHCR is a human rights organization (though its name implies it being only a single person, it has 10000 staff members) but not an NGO.

Some NGOs aren't human rights organizations, e.g. the NRA is an NGO but i guess quite a few would not call it a human rights organization.

As i already said, nearly any definition of a word is fine as long as one is aware about usual definitions to avoid misunderstanding like that one.

I did not say anything about NGOs in general, but only about "human rights organizations" and by the qualifier "often" its not necessarily a statement about all of them.

Keep that as something to learn from our discussion, that the definition of words is critical. I at least try to do that.

This is honestly not a difficult idea to grasp.

Of course it is easy to grasp that AI makes that mental gymnastics to present an image of ideological neutrality.

And of course it is also in some sense ridiculous, as by trying to be a HUMAN RIGHTS organization one cannot be ideological neutral, as human rights are an ideology. Mostly a fine one from my POV, but nonetheless an ideology.

Hence, a human rights organization in the end cannot be ideological neutral.

That human rights are non-neutral one already sees from the here discussed CDHRI. Nobody would go to the hassle to formulate a declaration of human rights in islam if human rights were ideologically neutral. They aren't.

Its currently the internationally dominant ideology (with some variations or variations in interpretation) at least formally. It would be nice, if that continues; but some human rights organizations will be of little help with that, if the **** hits the fan (which i hope will not happen, but no guarantees there).

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I do not find Amnesty's position at all difficult to understand. It appears consistent and conveys their practice very well. Perhaps you could send them an email and ask them to explain it to you in simpler terms, because I'm not sure we're going to get further if you insist on decontextualizing the notion of "ideology". Of course, if accounting for context is mere "mental gymnastics" to you, then some things may, I'm afraid, forever remain elusive.

 

[Carn]

because I'm not sure we're going to get further

There is no need for me to get further, as i understand the relevant positions discussed and understand my own position. You and David Mo do understand your own positions, some other positions discussed, but do not understand my position or that of several other posters; but since you are not even aware about not understanding and/or do not care, there is also no need to "get further".

 

[Carn]

Just for the irony:

https://translate.google.com/transl...oschee-kontrolle-fuer-zu-lasch-a-1177841.html

"The authorities should control mosques more closely. "You can not allow everyone to preach.""

""You can not just open a mosque and allow everyone to go there and preach, there has to be a license for it," he said. The countries on the continent meant well, allowing "these people" to run their own mosques and their own community centers. But religious leaders need to be educated, knowledgeable about Islam and have a license."

"In Germany, the state plays no role in the selection of preachers in mosques. Mosques do not need a permit either. The background is the religious freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law."

So an Arab Muslim implying that the usual religious freedom is supposedly for security reasons a bad idea in respect to islamic religious centers. Is he a racist islamophob for not only suggesting to observe mosques but actually control and license them (and if i understand correctly he means ALL mosques, not just suspicious ones)?

But i expect as often in this discussion, this question want receive an answer (to spell it out: to qualify as an answer it would have to include some statement like "No, he is no racist islamophobe"/"He is an islamophobe but no racist"/".." with potential bonus material including something like "In general, just suggesting to ensure some state control/observations of ALL mosques does not make one islamophobe or racist"/"In general, presuming that Islam should be subjected to special scrutinity as this person suggest is always islamophobic and hence this Muslim is an islamophobe"/"..." or some other statements in this regard)