Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[David Mo]

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.

I support your suggestion.
I don't understand what Carn wants to say with "gymnastic". The confussion between Organization for Human Rights and NGO, neither. It was clear that I was speaking of non-governmentall ONGs that defend the Human Rights. I think that he messes things up unnecessarily.

 

[David Mo]

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.


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.

(...)

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.

It was clear that I was speaking of non-governmental NGOs.

You are right in your criticism. AI defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UDHR is ideological. It represents something like a social-liberal ideology. But you are in a mistake. UDHR is a set of basic rules —sometimes too basic— that allows to particular ideologies play their games till some extent. These are our basic rules in Western democracies. And in AI are coherent —not ridiculous— when they refuse to judge these particular ideologies as a whole. This is AI's impartiality. I don’t know what other NGOs say, but I suppose that it is alike. Giving the difficulty to live without any ideology, it is the most acceptable concept of impartiality that I know.

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." [These are not Sheikh’s words!]
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)?

Minister of Tolerance? This is a true irony!

I don’t know if this Arab Minister is racist. It is not strange that a representative of ethnical minorities can support racist ideas. Do you know Uncle Tom? But he is decidedly ignorant of what democracy and religious freedom are —not strange considering the country of origin. In democracy there is not any exam or authoritative institution that can stop someone to preach Christianity, Buddhism or Islam as he likes. In the respect of law, of course. You can join your friends in your living room and preach the gospel of the Spaghetti Monster or the Saints of the Ninth Day if you wants. I suppose that for more massive meetings some kind of legal permission is needed.
An Arab Minister, that comes from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy doesn’t know what democracy is, but I have supposed that you are not a fan of the Arab monarchy.

ADDED: It is odd that this Arab Minister comes from the country that is usually blamed for finance the mosques that are the centre of Islamic radicalism. A case of hypocrisy or Sacred Ignorance? Perhaps the filters don't work?

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

Thank you for this semantic lesson! But I have the impression that you do some “gymnastics” more than a true analysis of words. Here my lesson of the day:

Without any contrary indication, take the simpler meaning of the words in their context.

Please, take note.

 

[Carn]

These are our basic rules in Western democracies.
...
In democracy there is not any exam or authoritative institution that can stop someone to preach Christianity, Buddhism or Islam as he likes. In the respect of law, of course. You can join your friends in your living room and preach the gospel of the Spaghetti Monster or the Saints of the Ninth Day if you wants.

Since we are trying to learn lessons here, here comes a pretty difficult lessons or problem for which i do not know an answer or solution:

As you say in the rules of "Western democracies" the concept of some intrusive oversight of what is preached is nearly or completely alien.

These rules were developed in societies with certain religions having a relevant role in society. And they worked and continue to work today. With said certain religions and also with some other religions.

The unspoken, never considered, never realy discussed assumption underlying this:

That religious freedom which worked fine with said certain religions having a relevant role in society, WILL work just as fine with ANY OTHER of the thousands of other religions having a relevant role in society (to clarify, not several thousand other religions have relevant roles in societies; the assumption is that if suddenly a 100 million converted to wiccan religions in Japan, making wiccan religion suddenly relevant in Japan, it would not be any relevant issue for Japanese state).


This assumption seems true beyond any doubt as long as one considers the content/teaching of the religions to be irrelevant. But that is also just an assumption.


And here what that representative from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy says is relevant:

An Arab Minister, that comes from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy doesn’t know what democracy is, but I have supposed that you are not a fan of the Arab monarchy.

Because he effectively claims that the above assumptions are wrong (in regard to Islam or at least some important denomination thereof; but at first it is realy irrelevant in regard to which of the thousands of religions the assumptions are wrong; a single one already would be a problem for the assumption underlying religious freedom).

Can i prove that the assumptions are wrong? No.
Can i prove them to be true? No.

Are there some events that call the assumption into question? Sorry, yes. For example in the above article about that Arab minister it is mentioned "the DoC [Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany] monitors dozens of mosques". They do not monitor dozens of churches; not dozens of synagogues; not dozens of buddhist learning centers; not dozens of any hindu meeting places (if they have any; which nobody cares about).

And if that basic assumption is wrong, we are screwed. Cause then societies will be between a rock (violating religious freedom) and a hard place (suffering the effects of the presence of a religion not compatible with religious freedom).

I am not aware about any solution or even any approach to verify/disprove the assumption.

 

[David Mo]

Since we are trying to learn lessons here, here comes a pretty difficult lessons or problem for which i do not know an answer or solution:

As you say in the rules of "Western democracies" the concept of some intrusive oversight of what is preached is nearly or completely alien.

These rules were developed in societies with certain religions having a relevant role in society. And they worked and continue to work today. With said certain religions and also with some other religions.

The unspoken, never considered, never realy discussed assumption underlying this:

That religious freedom which worked fine with said certain religions having a relevant role in society, WILL work just as fine with ANY OTHER of the thousands of other religions having a relevant role in society (to clarify, not several thousand other religions have relevant roles in societies; the assumption is that if suddenly a 100 million converted to wiccan religions in Japan, making wiccan religion suddenly relevant in Japan, it would not be any relevant issue for Japanese state).


This assumption seems true beyond any doubt as long as one considers the content/teaching of the religions to be irrelevant. But that is also just an assumption.


And here what that representative from a theocratic-totalitarian monarchy says is relevant:



Because he effectively claims that the above assumptions are wrong (in regard to Islam or at least some important denomination thereof; but at first it is realy irrelevant in regard to which of the thousands of religions the assumptions are wrong; a single one already would be a problem for the assumption underlying religious freedom).

Can i prove that the assumptions are wrong? No.
Can i prove them to be true? No.

Are there some events that call the assumption into question? Sorry, yes. For example in the above article about that Arab minister it is mentioned "the DoC [Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany] monitors dozens of mosques". They do not monitor dozens of churches; not dozens of synagogues; not dozens of buddhist learning centers; not dozens of any hindu meeting places (if they have any; which nobody cares about).

And if that basic assumption is wrong, we are screwed. Cause then societies will be between a rock (violating religious freedom) and a hard place (suffering the effects of the presence of a religion not compatible with religious freedom).

I am not aware about any solution or even any approach to verify/disprove the assumption.

You have returned to the beginning: You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system in the name of some vague assumptions based on the supposed efficacy of repression that you cannot justify with any evidence.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is the German institution responsible of the surveillance of people suspect to be a threat to the State. It monitors diverse groups and individuals that are suspected to collaboration with the Islamic terrorism, among others. He monitors about 90 mosques among 1.500 existent in Germany —according data of 2010. There is not any evidence that other means more repressive and discriminatory would produce better outcomes in the fight against terrorism. A zero degree of risk is impossible in this matter.

Sincerely, I find that democracy is too serious to be throw away in the name of speculative and vague remarks. Repressive systems have a spurious prestige in some media and are regularly ventilated by demagogic politicians as a mean of win votes by exploiting people’s fears. This is one of the flaws of our democracy.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

The primary source being what, in this case? I imagine you are referring to religious texts (Koran|hadith, Bible), or to the main text(s) that serve(s) as the source(s) of an ideology (Mein Kampf, Das Capital).

A sound argument is one that not only refers to the text, but to the most common or widespread ways in which the author/authorities/contemporary followers interpret the text(s). Two sources have already been provided for this, the latter being a summary statement and guidelines for action in today's world, signed by a great many countries subscribing in their majorities to the religion.

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.

Which is what makes the compendium of a variety of modern, educated authorities who subscribe to the faith, writing on its teachings regarding war and peace, so incredibly informative and a proper basis for discussion.

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.

This is where you have your hang-up. I'll clue you in on what we've seen so far:

- Ideas drive behavior
- Ideas taken as absolute can, given specific formulations, be taken as authorization and/or sanction for action, including violence.

Pending, in your case, is an examination of the actual content, and its analysis given all the above, including the specific measures proposed by the canon in question regarding its level of authority and the room for others to disagree. Also pending is an examination, discussed in the textbook, of the reaction of Muslim authorities and leading thought leaders to the fall of the last Caliphate following WWI, and the impact of pursuant colonialism and subjection by Western powers in terms of the ideological responses formulated, and pursued since that time.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

Just in case, from Google:

ideology
ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"

2. archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s)

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The primary source being what, in this case? I imagine you are referring to religious texts (Koran|hadith, Bible), or to the main text(s) that serve(s) as the source(s) of an ideology (Mein Kampf, Das Capital).

To an extent, but mainly I refer to primary sources dealing with Muslim society throughout history.

Of course, metanarratives are ultimately not that useful, so any analysis will be largely constrained to the period in which it was formulated. It would be very hard to formulate anything but a very narrow thesis sweeping across larger parts of Islamic society. I mean, I don't think a lot of people dispute (though frankly it is not a period I have studied in detail) that Shah Ishmail I's reforms and forcible imposition of Shi'a Islam was driven by the fact that he believed himself to be a messianic figure, but that's not exactly something you can extrapolate.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

To an extent, but mainly I refer to primary sources dealing with Muslim society throughout history.

Methinks you equivocate. We have enough, with sources, to proceed with respect to the period of 1917 onward, highly relevant to Islam's position, teaching, and behavior in the modern world. Then again, we could pretend things said were not, actions taken were not, policies in place are not.

It's all really simple. Here is my new religion:

I, and I alone, am God's only valid representative on Earth, now and for all of history. Nothing before, and nothing after, has any authority. I hereby declare that there are no truths but these truths I speak. The rules I speak were written by my God on every single human heart, so all know them well. Ignorance, therefore, is no excuse. All who question these teachings or my authority will be put to the sword. Nothing else, and I mean nothing, matters. Any who wish to follow must enforce God's will as I, and I alone, understand it. Those who kill in my name or my God's name have a direct ticket to paradise, and all their sins, all, will be forgiven in exchange. Bow, or die!

Mind if I teach this to young people who are in the midst of rampant anomie and alienation? How about highly educated people who have no career prospects and are hungry for position and respect?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Methinks you equivocate. We have enough, with sources, to proceed with respect to the period of 1917 onward, highly relevant to Islam's position, teaching, and behavior in the modern world. Then again, we could pretend things said were not, actions taken were not, policies in place are not.

And clearly, we can learn everything we need to know about Christianity from studying the years 1540 to 1640.

 

[Carn]

Just in case, from Google:

ideology
ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"

2. archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s)

Both TubblaBlubba and David Mo already implied that they do not care about common meaning of words, therefore this is useless.

It's all really simple. Here is my new religion:

You can do better.

Just proclaim that the more the children that are sacrificed for you weep the better and that the hearts that are raised towards you should still beat a last time; just ensure that no conquistadors show up.

 

[David Mo]

Both TubblaBlubba and David Mo already implied that they do not care about common meaning of words, therefore this is useless.

Excuse me, this is your assumption. "Ideology" is a complex word that has no less of ten diverse meanings. See: Eagleton, Terry (1991) Ideology: An Introduction, London-New York, Verso, pp. 1-2.


In any case the concept played a marginal place in our debate. I have referred to it in order to explain what is Amnesty International's position on the issue and why they never would pronounce on a political or religious ideology, excepet in the case that the basic principles of an ideology -or whatever you like to call it- directly attack the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the case of racism or supremacism.

I don't know why you have tried to discredit the whole position of your opponent only because you disagree with the use of a word, even when this disagreement is subsequently explained.

 

[Carn]

I don't know why you have tried to discredit the whole position of your opponent only because you disagree with the use of a word, even when this disagreement is subsequently explained.

Cause it happens constantly. I say X, you read Y; attempts to highlight, that i said X, because the words i used have a certain meaning, is mostly useless in part because you seem to care little what the meaning of words is and mostly prescribe the words other people use the meaning that you prefer (instead of prescribing the meaning the other side likely used).

With "ideology" it was just most obvious.

 

[David Mo]

Cause it happens constantly. I say X, you read Y; attempts to highlight, that i said X, because the words i used have a certain meaning, is mostly useless in part because you seem to care little what the meaning of words is and mostly prescribe the words other people use the meaning that you prefer (instead of prescribing the meaning the other side likely used).

With "ideology" it was just most obvious.

How people use a word -if we know how this is- doesn't prevent that someone wants to select a more accurate meaning. In any case, the problem doesn't continue if this meaning is declared. And this was the case with my explanation of AI's position.

Maybe you are not used to debate with complex concepts and you finds them not usual. But, after my explanation, I don't know what is your problem.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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?

My take on this is that there is criticism of Islam the ideology, and criticism of Muslims within the context of the crackpot delusional wet-dream of world dominating dark-skinned foreigners who want to murder us good people in our beds.

The former isn't racism, the latter is akin to racism and is sourced in the same fear of the other.

People on both sides make mistakes about the meanings and motivations of people who argue from the other side.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you are correct it would be dumb beyond the wildest madness to let any Muslims immigrate if the immigration could be in light of international and national law be avoided.

Because the inner christian bloodshed was in those hundreds of years horrible and if Islam copies that process the inner muslim bloodshed will be such, that historically ISIS will probably not register much; and anyone sane would do everything to avoid the risk of being drawn into an islamic 30-year war (*), for which the risk will increase the more muslims there are in a country.

(*In the historic 30 year war every weapon available was used; no reason in a serious bloodshed with in part religious motivation this would not be done today)

A pretty good example, methinks.

This clearly has nothing to do with the content of the religious beliefs known as Islam, but is wholly motivated by fear of the foreigner, and consequently would accurately be conceived of as akin to racism.

 

[Carn]

A pretty good example, methinks.

This clearly has nothing to do with the content of the religious beliefs known as Islam, but is wholly motivated by fear of the foreigner, and consequently would accurately be conceived of as akin to racism.

If you had carfully read, what i wrote, you would have noticed that the motivating issue would be a fear of a rehash of the religious wars known from Christianity in Islam.

How can you then write, that it would be WHOLLY motivated by fear of foreigner, when the words written EXPLICITELY speak about fear of potential future developments within a religion?

If you written "also" or something, maybe your point would have any validity.

@David Mo

As i said, you repeatedly commit that error.
For example above you said about one post of me:
"You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system"

That has little or nothing to do with what i have written, at least applaing the usual meaning of words to the text of the post. Probably again you using some "more accurate" (*) meaning of some words and therefore thinking your description of my post is correct.

(* Which BTW in my book is wrongly worded; what you actually seem to aim at is "better" definitions and not "more accurate"; "more accurate" only yield a clearer definition what is meant, but what you want is a definition that more closely fits the phenomenon perceived by you in the real world)

 

[TubbaBlubba]

My take on this is that there is criticism of Islam the ideology,

This is still complicated by the nebulous natures of "Islam" and "Ideology", however. Islam means different things to different people. I think it's certainly sensible to discuss concepts in Islam, sects, traditions, etc, but one should really take care with what kind of value judgments they make. There tends to be a lack of appreciation for context and a tend to beg the question among those who criticize religion, unfortunately.

 

[David Mo]

@David Mo

As i said, you repeatedly commit that error.
For example above you said about one post of me:
"You pretend to knock several principles of our democratic system"

That has little or nothing to do with what i have written, at least applaing the usual meaning of words to the text of the post. Probably again you using some "more accurate" (*) meaning of some words and therefore thinking your description of my post is correct.

I don't know which "some words" you refer to. You have began your comments defending some anti-Islam politicians, blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example). I say that this is contrary to Human Rights and the principles of our Western democracies. I also say that to go against democracy in the name of security is very dangerous.
This is not a disagreement on words. You know what I am saying. This is a disagreement about values and facts.
The only disagreement about words between us was about the meaning of “ideology”.

(* Which BTW in my book is wrongly worded; what you actually seem to aim at is "better" definitions and not "more accurate"; "more accurate" only yield a clearer definition what is meant, but what you want is a definition that more closely fits the phenomenon perceived by you in the real world)

I don't understand what “BTW” means nor what book you have written(?).

 

[calebprime]

By The Way = BTW

 

[Carn]

I don't know which "some words" you refer to.
...blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)
...
This is not a disagreement on words. You know what I am saying.

But you do not know what i am saying, as i never did this:
"blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)"

And i cannot say, which words these are, as it is you who reads the above from my texts; i cannot identify which sentences, words and phrases make you think, that i did the above; but whichever they are, you understand them differently than i understand them.

nor what book you have written(?).

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+my+book