Don't criticise Islam, says UN

[Mycroft]

If we now go back to Islam and the terrorists, the terrorist circle would certainly be bigger than the KKK circle is today, but it wouldn't have been such a big difference 50 to 100 years ago. So, why do we associate Islam with terrorists but not Christianity with the KKK?

I think if you go back 100 years you would find the identity of the KKK with Christianity to be a lot stronger. In todays world we understand that association to be something to be ashamed of, but that wasn't true around the turn of the century.

Consider how popular this film was and what it says about our society from back then.

 

[frank462]

--snip
Well, at least for the German media, I can personally attest with confidence that there was no defamation of Islam.

Hi danielk,
Check out this article:

Paving the Way for a Muslim Parallel Society

A recent ruling in Germany by a judge who cited the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany that is welcoming to Islamic fundamentalists.

She didn't know it, nor did she even expect it. She had good intentions. Perhaps it was a mistake. In fact, it was most certainly a mistake. The best thing to do would be to wipe the slate clean.

Last week, in the middle of the storm, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge on Frankfurt's family court, was speechless. But Bernhard Olp, a spokesman for the city's municipal court, was quick to jump in. Olp reported that the judge had been under emotional stress stemming from a murder that had been committed in her office 10 years ago, and that she was now planning to take a break to recuperate. He also mentioned that she was "outraged" -- not about herself or her scandalous ruling, but over the reactions the case has triggered.

The reactions were so fierce that one could have been forgiven for mistakenly thinking that Germany's Muslims had won the headscarf dispute and the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons in a single day and, in one fell swoop, had taken a substantial bite out of the legal foundations of Western civilization.
--snip


Be sure to read the whole article, it's rather long.


.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, but then you focused on the accuracy of the proportion.

Let me rephrase: Are you suggesting that percentage of the KKK to US Christians 50-100 years ago is significantly less than the percentage of Islamic Terrorists to Islam, thus invalidating my analogy?

I don't think it really matters. The analogy works in that both religions support or have supported violent fanatics. Knowing what the exact proportions are doesn't in any way change what would be an appropriate reaction today.

In the past, it certainly would have been appropriate (in my opinion) to criticize that element of Christianity that led people to believe it was a good thing to form themselves into secret terrorist cells for the purpose of spreading fear and murdering people. I also think it would have been perfectly acceptable to criticize that element of Christianity that may have had nothing to do with the KKK, but still wasn't vocal enough in condemning their doctrines and practices.

In exactly the same way, though on a lesser scale, it's perfectly appropriate (in my opinion) to criticize that aspect of Christianity which leads to violence against homosexuals or condemns science as being anti-God. We do these things routinely without fear of "offending" Christians and we don't take seriously the suggestion that it might be equivalent to "discrimination" against them.

When the KKK revived in the 1950s as a terrorist force opposing the civil rights movement, the federal government suppressed it again.

There was not the dithering and "sensitivity" we now see about Muslim terrorism.

Which is the crux of the issue. Why should it be so hard to condemn the abominable?

We don't have any problem at all condemning the dark side of Christianity, it's even okay for some to go so far as to say all of Christianity is bad. I don't personally agree with it, but you certainly don't see the hand-wringing and the accusations of prejudice when it happens.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if the trans-atlantic language barrier is at work. But "defame" and "criticize" are not synonyms as far as I'm concerned.

I went to the trouble of googling the defs:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=criticise
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=defame

And I'm sure there are art-critics who wouldn't want to be called art-defamers. Picking fault isn't the same as kicking ****.

Synonyms don't need to have identical meanings. It is enough if their meanings overlap. Thumb through a thesaurus sometime and see what words are grouped together.

 

[Father Dagon]

Honestly, is there anything more intolerant than treating Muslims like little schoolchildren who you cannot offend? Somehow this seems to be called tolerance these days.

Nope. And I have an idea that could be extended to other whinebags as well: If you think that you must be protected from other peoples point of views, then most of your rights will be forfeit: No voting rights. No drivers license. Severley limited property rights. Limited traveling rights. And so on...

 

[FireGarden]

Synonyms don't need to have identical meanings. It is enough if their meanings overlap.

While defamation isn't the opposite of criticism, I don't think they are similar enough. Art-critics are not art-defamers.

Defamation has a malicious angle -- whereas criticism can be constructive, defamation cannot be.

That's my view of the words. I don't regard them as synonyms. But then again, as I said before, just because we're both speaking English it doesn't mean that we're speaking the same language.

ETA:

Thumb through a thesaurus sometime and see what words are grouped together.

Of course, I have used a thesaurus before. And solved a few crosswords. You imply I have not, or that I haven't paid attention while doing so. That was less contstructive than your first critique, but still not defamation.

"Read a few books where words are used in context, you illiterate numbskull," would have been a little closer since I'm neither illiterate nor a numbskull.

 

[Mycroft]

While defamation isn't the opposite of criticism, I don't think they are similar enough. Art-critics are not art-defamers.

Defamation: The expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone.

A critic could be a defamer. A defamer is certainly a critic. The definitions overlap enough to fit the normal standards of newspaper headlines. Certainly there is room to argue that a different phrasing would be more accurate, but that's true of many newspaper headlines. It's not enough (in my opinion) to support Cleon's assertion that the headline is an outright lie.

Of course, I have used a thesaurus before. And solved a few crosswords. You imply I have not, or that I haven't paid attention while doing so. That was less contstructive than your first critique, but still not defamation.

"Read a few books where words are used in context, you illiterate numbskull," would have been a little closer since I'm neither illiterate nor a numbskull.

You're reading a bit more into my words than I had intended. I could have phrased it something like; "I'm sure you remember from the many times you've thumbed through a thesaurus..." but that's both presumptuous and awkward. You seem like a literate person, I had no intention of implying anything else. I understand how you could have taken offense, and I apologize.

 

[BPSCG]

On 9/11, you'll notice that a symbol of our economic power was attacked, not a religious symbol.

Oh. I thought it was a couple of buildings with tens of thousands of people in them, else they would have attacked the New York Stock exchange and Microsoft headquarters. Silly me.

 

[BPSCG]

Reaffirming that discrimination against human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,
Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the different cultures and nations of the world, while manifestations of cultural prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards different cultures and religions generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations throughout the world,

Is discrimination against Christians "an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter..." if it happens in Saudi Arabia? Can I go visit Mecca now? And when I get there, can I hand out some Gideon Bibles and copies of God is Not Great and The God Delusion?

Does Iran believe that respect for Jews "is essential for peace, understanding and friendship among individuals and people of the different cultures and nations of the world..."? Does this mean that Iran's president is going to stop talking about destroying Israel?

Just asking because I wanted to see how far the Muslim world believes these principles extend.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Silly BPSCG, they go as far as they touch the first country that has a major muslim population. Then, they make a bend.

 

[Pardalis]

According to the draft, in its opening paragraph:

Recalling that all States have pledged themselves, under the Charter of the United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-183.htm

I guess "all States" doesn't include Islamic states, because that would be discriminatory against their freedom to persecute.

 

[FireGarden]

I understand how you could have taken offense, and I apologize.

I wasn't offended. I was trying to illustrate the spectrum of criticism that is possible. We have a range of words of similar meaning because there are similar things to describe.

Certainly there is room to argue that a different phrasing would be more accurate, but that's true of many newspaper headlines. It's not enough (in my opinion) to support Cleon's assertion that the headline is an outright lie.

Well "lie" is a strong word. But... to turn your own argument against you...

"not accurate"/"lie" there is something of an overlap. Lies are rarely accurate, and if you're not being accurate then you could be lying.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh. I thought it was a couple of buildings with tens of thousands of people in them, else they would have attacked the New York Stock exchange and Microsoft headquarters. Silly me.

I'm not trying to minimize the severity of what they did. I'm just pointing out that the attacks were politically motivated.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm not trying to minimize the severity of what they did. I'm just pointing out that the attacks were politically motivated.

So you didn't mean to say:

On 9/11, you'll notice that a symbol of our economic power was attacked, not a religious symbol.

You meant to say:

On 9/11, you'll notice that a symbol of our political power was attacked, not a religious symbol.

Or something...

 

[Tailgater]

You can't be serious..

that looks like 80% or so....

I'm too lazy to do the math atm, but that is probably not close to 80%.

 

[Tailgater]

Ok, I was bored and did the math. The inner circle is roughly 52% with a 5% margin of error based on a tape measurer and my monitor.

 

[BPSCG]

Ok, I was bored and did the math. The inner circle is roughly 52% with a 5% margin of error based on a tape measurer and my monitor.

So you are saying half of all Muslims are terrorists? Surely, you should be beheaded.

 

[mrbaracuda]

He always has the choice to embrace the tolerant, peaceful religion or pay the poll tax and be subdued! Oh wait, the latter was only an option for "people of the book", wasn't it?

 

[Tailgater]

So you are saying half of all Muslims are terrorists? Surely, you should be beheaded.

No, but polling of muslims who find terrorist acts justified is quite high.

http://www.islam.com/reply.asp?id=930474&ct=17&mn=930474

I'm reminded of a similar poll conducted in Indonesia last fall. One in 10 Indonesian Muslims were found to support bombings in defense of Islam.

They took the news a little more seriously in "moderate" Indonesia. One in 10 in Indonesia, you see, equal 19 million Muslims for violent jihad. That's just Indonesia.

Recent polling in Britain found that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the London subway bombers were righteous "martyrs," and 7 percent approve of suicide bombing attacks on civilians in Britain in some circumstances.

Now, add that to the 16 percent of French Muslims, 16 percent of Spanish Muslims, 7 percent of German Muslims, 28 percent of Egyptian Muslims, 14 percent of Pakistani Muslims, and 46 percent of Nigerian Muslims who told Pew last summer that "violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam" can be justified "often/sometimes."

A few fringe jihadists here, a few fringe jihadists there, and soon you're talking about bloody real numbers.

I'm looking for the original poll info, but I'm pretty sure these numbers match what I read in a thread a while back.

ETA http://search.washtimes.com/commentary/20070525-090243-5298r.htm

 

[BPSCG]

No, but polling of muslims who find terrorist acts justified is quite high.

Sorry, I forgot to use my tongue-in-cheek font...