Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Belz...]

The concept of race is more nebulous than you assume.

Maybe, but not enough to include south-east asians along with black Africans and Arabs and Persians.

 

[Carn]

I don't think "criticizing Islam" is a practice that can be meaningfully discussed. "Islam" as an entity is too broad.

And yes, the same goes for Christianity.

Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?

One can discuss whether archological evidence is in contradiction with the story (as the story gives a rather precise idea where and when - for archological standards - and even names of rulers and political entities) and based on that criticize Christianity. And one would criticize the whole thing, if one would try to argue that e.g. some Pontius Pilatus never existed or at least had no sort of ruling or judical power in Judäa around year 30.

 

[Belz...]

Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?

I think Tubba argued himself into a corner and won't admit it.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think Tubba argued himself into a corner and won't admit it.

No, I'm simply not willing to expend more than a limited amount of effort on pointless semantics.

Maybe, but not enough to include south-east asians along with black Africans and Arabs and Persians.

You'd be surprised. Exactly how closely related do you think all "black" people are?

Incidentally I think sub-saharan Africans figure less prominently in the racist/orientalist stereotypes surrounding popular conceptions of Islam.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why should one not discuss Christianity's claim that the supreme creature is somehow three persons with one of them at a certain point in time being born as a human, dying as a human and then raising from the dead?

Discuss it all you want. Engage in theological debate all you like. You know full well that is not what 'criticize' in this context entails.

One can discuss whether archological evidence is in contradiction with the story (as the story gives a rather precise idea where and when - for archological standards - and even names of rulers and political entities) and based on that criticize Christianity. And one would criticize the whole thing, if one would try to argue that e.g. some Pontius Pilatus never existed or at least had no sort of ruling or judical power in Judäa around year 30.

There is nothing wrong with examining scripture's validity as a source of history. That's not what this discussion is about.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm simply not willing to expend more than a limited amount of effort on pointless semantics.

They are entirely different. It's not semantics to point out that something is entirely unrelated to something else. Your problem is that you have decided that when someone speaks out against Islam, they are speaking out in fact against a specific ethnic group. That is YOUR interpretation, which you are unwilling to back away from. That is you, looking for racism to point to, presumably to show the world how non-racist you are. Don't project your failure to distinguish things on others.

You'd be surprised. Exactly how closely related do you think all "black" people are?

Speaking of pointless semantics...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Your problem is that you have decided that when someone speaks out against Islam, they are speaking out in fact against a specific ethnic group.

I have said no such thing.

 

[Belz...]

I have said no such thing.

I didn't say you did. I'm concluding from your persistent behaviour in this thread that this is how your mind operates on this topic. You've shown an inability to distinguish the two, or at least an inability to admit that the two are separate. It stands to reason that you think the two are one and the same, especially since you started with this:

"It's about religion, not race, so it isn't racism" is honestly a tired bit of intellectual dishonesty. The very need to ever invoke it shows how dishonest it is. Religion and race have gone hand in hand for as long as there has been an identifiable concept of "race" in Europe.

In other words, if you critique Islam, you critique a race, and you're racist, and don't try to deny it.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In other words, if you critique Islam, you critique a race, and you're racist, and don't try to deny it.

What is a "race"?

 

[Carn]

Discuss it all you want. Engage in theological debate all you like. You know full well that is not what 'criticize' in this context entails.

No, you do not understand.

When someone claims that Jesus never lived, never was crucified, never rose from the dead, that person claims that the entire whol of christianity is a LIE.

That in itself is not yet problematic, but the next question is immediately who lied and why.

Depending on the answers to that necessary question, one at once indirectly accuses all christians of futhering a lie and maybe some problematic habits.



And lets do the same thing about Islam.

Islam claims that a guy called Muhammed received divine revelations (meaning information flow from some being right into Muhammeds mind, which is a scientific claim unfortunately not testable to due lack of both time machines and good bran scanners which would detect if outside information pops up in his head) at some place and time.

Someone argues that no, Muhammed did not receive divine revelations.

Then again, there is a big LIE.

Who lied why?

With Muhammed its - sorry - reasonable to ponder the possibility that the lie originated in himself for personal gain (receiving a revelation when a chick you want to have fun with rejects marriage that you are also allowed to have fun with your slave girls is some sort of questionable coincidence).

But then one can get full throated "islamophobia" accusations, by just presuming that Mohammed did not receive divine revelations and drawing reasonable conclusions.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Maybe you could try not couching academic arguments in moral terms like "lie" and try and understand the mindset of believers? Along with some respect for the limits of historical inquiry perhaps.

 

[Belz...]

What is a "race"?

And you had the nerve to accuse me of playing semantics.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And you had the nerve to accuse me of playing semantics.

Yes. You were the one to complain that "Muslims" were not a race. I replied that what is relevant here are the structures involved, the identification of an "other", and so forth, - and that racism has always been closely tied to religion.

"Race" is a pseudoscientific or culture-specific concept. But racism is real. That's why "Islam religion, not race!" is smoke and mirrors. If you engaged in remotely sensible and not utterly tone-deaf, offensive discussion of Islam, you'd never have to invent such an asinine diversion.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. You were the one to complain that "Muslims" were not a race.

They're not!

I replied that what is relevant here are the structures involved

Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You are wrong. You've utterly failed to support your claim.

the identification of an "other", and so forth, - and that racism has always been closely tied to religion.

You're talking nonsense. You're continuing to prove what I said earlier.

"Race" is a pseudoscientific or culture-specific concept. But racism is real.

That makes no sense. It's like saying that sex doesn't exist but sexism is real.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

They're not!



Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You are wrong. You've utterly failed to support your claim.



You're talking nonsense. You're continuing to prove what I said earlier.



That makes no sense. It's like saying that sex doesn't exist but sexism is real.

I am not wiggling, you are unable to think beyond the most banal semantic relationships. I have consistently referred to the shared structures of racism and Islamophobia.

 

[Belz...]

I am not wiggling, you are unable to think beyond the most banal semantic relationships.

Distinguishing between completely different things is not semantics. Stop repeating the same falsehoods.

 

[Egg]

Distinguishing between completely different things is not semantics.

If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism? It seems to me that Tubba is suggesting there are often strong links between the two. Perhaps a kind of xenophobic, tribal, religious/cultural prejudice that could probably be described in either way. Makes sense to me.

 

[David Mo]

But this would mean, exclusive criticism of Quran would have to be skipped until the day when "white supremacists" (or whatever one wants to call them) no longer exploit fear of Islam for their political goals.

I think "white supremacists" will always exploit such fears as long as such fears exist.

I think fears regarding Islam will exist as long as regularly some kind of atrocities are committed by people claiming to act in the name Of Allah.

So the day when one can offer exclusive criticism of Ouran would be in one option the day when no longer some people regularly commit some kind of atrocities supposedly in the name of Allah, cause only then the "white supremacists" can no longer exploit fears.
Or alternatively the day when world has somehow got rid of "white supremacists".
Presuming the latter never happens, one might find oneself in a perfect catch 22:
If one wants to argue, that the Quran has unlike some other holy books a greater potential to "encourage" some people to commit atrocities in the name of Allah, one has to postpone such argument (or at least the "greater" part) till the day when no longer people commit such atrocities in the name of Allah (or not more than in the name of other gods).
Which would just be the day, when such argument could no longer be true/valid.

So you exclude the possibility that someone might sincerely based on reasoning avoiding any bias reach the conclusion that Bible/Torah are somehow compatible with democracy while Quran isn't?

And how would the state allowed to adjust the laws, if hypothetically some particular belief is fostering realy a lor more terrorism than all other beliefs combined and that a plausibel explanation seems to be that this is due to the content of the belief?

To remind, mostly political ideologies are equaly free to be promoted; but history shows that some political ideologies make human rights violations by governments following the respective ideology far more likely; and this is used by some countries as a justification to have special laws regarding such political ideologies.

Hence, when the state finds that some political ideologies are a lot more problematic than others, the state - at least in some countries - is allowed to tailor laws or even only the application of laws and other political measures specifically to weaken that ideology.

An example for this approach is visible even in this thread, in which some posters seem to argue, that "blasphemous" attacks on mosques should be punished especially severe if committed by right-wing extremist/nazis; that is specifically applying harsher punishments to followers of that political ideology probably with the intent to weaken the influence of that ideology with the underlying motivation based in observation that that ideology is a lot more dangerous than other ideologies.

And also, this was not a comparison, but just an example, that with ideologies the extent in which they foster violence and the connection of that with the content of the ideology is to some extent valid reason for the state is justified in treating that ideology different from others.

Which raises from my POV the above question, if and how the state might react to religions differing vastly in respect to fostering violence.

I am afraid that you are misunderstanding my point of view.

First: I think that all the Holy Books that I know are anti-democratic and foster the violence against opponents. Many of them —the Quran included— hold an ambiguous position about the infidels, but not complete tolerance is the dominant line.

Second: Many believers think that their Holy Books are compatible with democracy —the Quran is not an exception. Indonesia is a Muslim country and it is one of the older democracies in Asia. According a recent survey, in my country more of 90% of Muslims are in favour of democracy. This is not a rational position. It is the outcome of political needs and social pressure. This is not rational, but it is welcome. Rejection of terrorism among European Muslims is higher. Therefore the identification Islam=terrorism is a dangerous auto-predictive foresight. WE have to be careful with this.

Third: If anti-terrorism laws define what is terrorism and what is encouraging terrorism I don’t see any need to make particular laws neither against Islam nor Judaism. There is no need to make exceptions with neo-nazis groups neither. Violence, racism, intolerance or terrorism are neutral concepts. That is what we need in laws. Not discrimination.

Fourth: We atheist are against religion. We have diverse reasons. We ought to evaluate the circumstances in any case in order to draw correct strategies. To fight against a powerful religion or a minority one is a very different business. To fight against religion in a democracy is not the same that to fight against a discriminated religion in a Muslim state. Is in evaluating these circumstances that I see that some attacks against Islam are not rational, but masked racism.
I pose an example:
In a demonstration against terrorism I was accompanied by a Muslim that was dirigent of a Muslim women organization. Do you think that this was the moment to discuss with her about the inexistence of Allah or the Quran's verses that provoque intolerance?

And no more.

I am a little surprised that you seem ignore what is “white-supremacism”. Is it a false impression for my part?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism? It seems to me that Tubba is suggesting there are often strong links between the two. Perhaps a kind of xenophobic, tribal, religious/cultural prejudice that could probably be described in either way. Makes sense to me.

That, and I'm also deeply sceptical of the notion of "criticizing religion" as opposed to the particular social structures and movements that cause harm. Nearly always, atheists who "criticize religion" have a deeply flawed understanding of what religion is to people and how they understand it. Aggressively proclaiming that Islam is a lie because you perceive an inconsistently in the Qur'an? What purpose does that serve except to go into high dudgeon and feeling superior?

Try going to a Mosque or a Jesuit monastery and talk to the people there, voice your thoughts and see what they say, if you actually want a deeper understanding of how religious thought works.

 

[Belz...]

If the "things" in question are the meanings of words, then it pretty much is.

I'm having trouble with your objection here, Argumemnon. It looks to me like you're arguing against a claim that criticizing religion is, by nature, racist. You might want to reread some of Tubba's posts in context, because I'm not getting that message from what he's saying.

When White Supremacists try to drum up fear of Muslims, what do you suppose is behind that? Islamophobia? Racism?

I'm not discussing specific examples. Of course you can find criticism of religion based on bigotry. But criticism of religion is not, in and of itself, bigotry, nor is it bigotry most of the time.