Is this to me? I never said anything about dictionaries. While I think perhaps many dictionaries are wrong in their definitions of atheist (I mean, again, you are atheist for lots of Gods and Alien Overlords) in the end Dictionary publishers are private businesses looking to sell a book. We don't need to take their definitions as the ultimate truth.
Is Religious Bigotry off the table?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
A couple questions I have:
(1)
Would we refer to the idea that some people are "unclean" due to their religious belief, Religious Bigotry? Is that a form of Bigotry?
(2)
WASP skinheads. Is my saying "WASP skinheads" are bigots, a false statement? It seems to me that if a person is a WASP skinhead, they are, a bigot. Why? Because WASP skinheads accept the ideology that non-White people are a lesser race. This is, by definition, Bigotry.
(3)
When a WASP skinhead refuses to shake the hand of a Black person - that's acting like a Bigot, right?
(4)
What about when a Muslims refuses to shake the hand of a Kafir? Is that Muslim acting like a Bigot? Am I expected to accept this?
We don't tolerate it socially when WASP skinheads act like bigots. In some small way, we treat the WASP skinhead disapprovingly. Either we don't socially interact with them. We don't talk highly of them. We don't invite them out, while we may invite everyone else. Or, in my case, we sit the person down and discuss with them what's wrong with their way of thinking. Which I have done on numerous occasions. Let's not pretend we look the other way when Muslims act like bigots. It's possibly one explanation for why Muslim communities, and by extension Muslims, are being isolated in some nations. Well, that can't be good for Muslims or Kafirs. Wouldn't it be better to sit the Muslim Bigot down and explain to them that their acting like a Bigot and that this is socially unacceptable in our modern multicultural societies? Explain to them that the concept of "Unclean people" is bigotry. That the term Kafir is Bigoted? Wouldn't that be good for everyone? Oh, but we can't. Because that's not PC. So instead we "pretend" nothing bigoted happened, and in the meantime don't invite said bigot to dinner, to coffee, to etc... WELL, that's not good is it? Isn't this one of the reasons why we have these sorts of problems in society? Any and every Muslim I am friends with knows my stance on this issue.
(1)
Would we refer to the idea that some people are "unclean" due to their religious belief, Religious Bigotry? Is that a form of Bigotry?
(2)
WASP skinheads. Is my saying "WASP skinheads" are bigots, a false statement? It seems to me that if a person is a WASP skinhead, they are, a bigot. Why? Because WASP skinheads accept the ideology that non-White people are a lesser race. This is, by definition, Bigotry.
(3)
When a WASP skinhead refuses to shake the hand of a Black person - that's acting like a Bigot, right?
(4)
What about when a Muslims refuses to shake the hand of a Kafir? Is that Muslim acting like a Bigot? Am I expected to accept this?
We don't tolerate it socially when WASP skinheads act like bigots. In some small way, we treat the WASP skinhead disapprovingly. Either we don't socially interact with them. We don't talk highly of them. We don't invite them out, while we may invite everyone else. Or, in my case, we sit the person down and discuss with them what's wrong with their way of thinking. Which I have done on numerous occasions. Let's not pretend we look the other way when Muslims act like bigots. It's possibly one explanation for why Muslim communities, and by extension Muslims, are being isolated in some nations. Well, that can't be good for Muslims or Kafirs. Wouldn't it be better to sit the Muslim Bigot down and explain to them that their acting like a Bigot and that this is socially unacceptable in our modern multicultural societies? Explain to them that the concept of "Unclean people" is bigotry. That the term Kafir is Bigoted? Wouldn't that be good for everyone? Oh, but we can't. Because that's not PC. So instead we "pretend" nothing bigoted happened, and in the meantime don't invite said bigot to dinner, to coffee, to etc... WELL, that's not good is it? Isn't this one of the reasons why we have these sorts of problems in society? Any and every Muslim I am friends with knows my stance on this issue.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
In other words, you are unhappy that you cannot denigrate the whole for the actions of the few.
Why don't you take it up with the individuals who have such antiquated beliefs? Do all Muslims believe this way?
No. They do not.
There are people who will not shake your hand for their own reason. There are people in the world who deem others as "unclean", and they exist in all religious spheres. The issue here is that you do not wish to discuss it from the angle of all religions but wish solely to apply it as a Muslim issue, when it is clearly not.
The other issue is that your posts brand all Muslims as being like this, when they are clearly not.
But the biggest issue is that you are unhappy that the rules of this site do not allow you to denigrate and insult a group of people because of their religious beliefs which you are applying to the whole, actions of a minute few.
And I say minute few because there is over 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. Clearly they all do not hold such beliefs or adhere to such rules in their lives. Clearly the actions of the minority do not represent the whole.
So why do you expect or demand that we apply it to the whole? Why do you target solely Muslims in discussing the "unclean" issue? Is it because a Muslim woman refused to shake your hand? A Christian woman nearly drowned my son when she tried to baptise him in her bathtub when he was a baby because she deemed him 'unclean'... Does that mean all Christians are the same? No.
In Israel a fair portion of the population deems Arabs (gentiles) unclean and stupid and another supports the discussion of the belief that one can kill gentiles and their babies because they could grow up to hate Jews. In Africa there is a whole army hell bent on conquering the land to inflict laws based off the 10 commandments (which believe me, makes Qu'ranic laws seem tame by comparison). In the US there are millions of insane born again Christians who are intent on converting everyone in the world, especially Jews, to save them from the coming end of days.. In light of all of this, you wish to concentrate solely on the fact that some in one religion deem others to be 'unclean'? Really?
The problem, Michael, is that you do not wish to sit the Muslim bigot down. Because from your posts, you do not differentiate between the Muslim and the Muslim bigot. To you, if your posts are to be believed, all Muslims are bigots. In other words, you are complaining that you can't be a bigot about bigots..
Why don't you take it up with the individuals who have such antiquated beliefs? Do all Muslims believe this way?
No. They do not.
There are people who will not shake your hand for their own reason. There are people in the world who deem others as "unclean", and they exist in all religious spheres. The issue here is that you do not wish to discuss it from the angle of all religions but wish solely to apply it as a Muslim issue, when it is clearly not.
The other issue is that your posts brand all Muslims as being like this, when they are clearly not.
But the biggest issue is that you are unhappy that the rules of this site do not allow you to denigrate and insult a group of people because of their religious beliefs which you are applying to the whole, actions of a minute few.
And I say minute few because there is over 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. Clearly they all do not hold such beliefs or adhere to such rules in their lives. Clearly the actions of the minority do not represent the whole.
So why do you expect or demand that we apply it to the whole? Why do you target solely Muslims in discussing the "unclean" issue? Is it because a Muslim woman refused to shake your hand? A Christian woman nearly drowned my son when she tried to baptise him in her bathtub when he was a baby because she deemed him 'unclean'... Does that mean all Christians are the same? No.
In Israel a fair portion of the population deems Arabs (gentiles) unclean and stupid and another supports the discussion of the belief that one can kill gentiles and their babies because they could grow up to hate Jews. In Africa there is a whole army hell bent on conquering the land to inflict laws based off the 10 commandments (which believe me, makes Qu'ranic laws seem tame by comparison). In the US there are millions of insane born again Christians who are intent on converting everyone in the world, especially Jews, to save them from the coming end of days.. In light of all of this, you wish to concentrate solely on the fact that some in one religion deem others to be 'unclean'? Really?
The problem, Michael, is that you do not wish to sit the Muslim bigot down. Because from your posts, you do not differentiate between the Muslim and the Muslim bigot. To you, if your posts are to be believed, all Muslims are bigots. In other words, you are complaining that you can't be a bigot about bigots..
Bells:
Ok. I can see it going the same way as the last one, but maybe it won't.
I'm not sure exactly what Michael is asking here. If he is asking whether it is acceptable to discuss religious bigotry, then I'd say that, as a general principle, it's fine. On the other hand, one must be wary of labelling individuals as bigots. And on sciforums, it is especially important to keeping the discourse civil that members do not unfairly label or stereotype each other.
I have no preferance for Islam over any other religion.*
Probably not, but I doubt that will stop some.
Ok. Good luck with that.
---
* Actually, I can think of some religions whose beliefs and practices are clearly inferior to those of Islam, so this isn't quite true.
Ok. I can see it going the same way as the last one, but maybe it won't.
I'm not sure exactly what Michael is asking here. If he is asking whether it is acceptable to discuss religious bigotry, then I'd say that, as a general principle, it's fine. On the other hand, one must be wary of labelling individuals as bigots. And on sciforums, it is especially important to keeping the discourse civil that members do not unfairly label or stereotype each other.
I have no preferance for Islam over any other religion.*
Probably not, but I doubt that will stop some.
Ok. Good luck with that.
---
* Actually, I can think of some religions whose beliefs and practices are clearly inferior to those of Islam, so this isn't quite true.
Bells,
As I have made myself abundantly clear, I view monotheism as a fundamentally flawed intolerant ideology that is completely out of place in today's multicultural societies. Anything that monotheism offers psychologically can easily be proffered up in another, more tolerant, superstitious paradigm - one devoid of the bigotry inherent in monotheism.
Yes, I know Christian Religious Bigots. As a matter of fact, most Christians (especially in the USA) are bigoted against atheists. I've turned a few in atheists.
BIG BIG difference.
FMPOV, it seems like you are saying that because only a few Skinheads actually go out and kill Blacks (or pregnant Portuguese woman they mistook for Blacks) that therefor we should ... WHAT? Accept their sick Bigot Ideology? I'm pretty sure we live on the same planet. You know full well numerous Islamic countries have laws on the books banning various religious beliefs - or conversion to other beliefs. And with FULL and WIDE support of the general populace. Didn't Geoff post the percentage of "moderate" Egyptians who would like to see the religious profligates (like Christian converts) put down (or at least tossed in jail or fined)?
Come on Bells.
I can't believe you so Naïve as to think there's no connection between the fundamental core principals taught in Islam and the endemic religious bigotry perpetrated across the so-called Islamic world. Why are Indonesian Muslims (>90%) in favor of banning Ahmadiyya Islam - even to the point of putting them in prison (Muslims are even killed who practice it). That shit hasn't happened in Europe since the Dark Ages. How many public Hindu Temples are in the city of Mecca? Any? Are there any in Synagogues all of KSA?
Why?
Any ideas?
Why are citizens of KSA so bigoted against other forms of personal religious belief that they ban their houses of worship? Does anyone else do THAT?
This is not new. How many Buddhist Temples were built in Baghdad at the height of the Caliphate? None. Zero. Zilch. It's wasn't that Muslims didn't trade with Buddhists - considering the entire city block the Chinese Emperor build specifically for Muslims, complete with Mosques. The reason they didn't build any Temples were the same reasons Christians never built and Mosques in Europe - they were Religious Bigots. It's part and parcel monotheism.
Yes, there are 1+ Billion Muslims in the world. This means we need to look Islamic bigotry right in the face and do something about it. If there were 1+ Billion LDS Fundamental Mormons, with laws against apostasy, with laws discriminating against personal belief, banning belief to deadly effect, then they'd be the ones in the spot light. As it is, coincidence has, it's Islam.
We don't tolerate Racial Bigotry, why should be tolerate Religious Bigotry? Come on. Whites used to ENSLAVE Black people. We had a Civil War over this. Is THAT what this is going to come down to? More Religious War? Wouldn't it be better if we confronted this head-on, like we do other forms of discrimination? Why do we suddenly shy away when it's religion. Oh, that's right. Most people are Religious Bigots themselves. Christians.
Lastly, I have Muslim friends. I spent 5 hours with a Muslim girl whose father died and she was in tears. She's a pretty conservative Muslim. She knows I don't believe in superstitious non-sense. She does, she probably wishes I did. But, I don't. A close buddy of mine rang me just last night as I was cycling. He's Muslim. We have drinks all the time. He knows how I feel. I even mentioned my theory Mohammad was a Jew. Which admittedly was a long time ago. He was shocked. But, it's not like we sit around crapping on about religion. There's more important stuff out there to talk about. Like hotty totty's on the beach
I know a number of Muslims and Christians obviously. These guys have a degree of religious bigotry. They can't help it as that's the way they were raised to think. I know white people who think: You can't judge all Blacks the same - sum er good. Yuck Yuck. They have a degree of racial bigotry. I work on them and some change, some don't. But I certainly don't hate them. I hate the ideology they were brainwashed to believe, but I don't hate them.
As I have made myself abundantly clear, I view monotheism as a fundamentally flawed intolerant ideology that is completely out of place in today's multicultural societies. Anything that monotheism offers psychologically can easily be proffered up in another, more tolerant, superstitious paradigm - one devoid of the bigotry inherent in monotheism.
Yes, I know Christian Religious Bigots. As a matter of fact, most Christians (especially in the USA) are bigoted against atheists. I've turned a few in atheists.
The action of a few. The support of the majority.
BIG BIG difference.
FMPOV, it seems like you are saying that because only a few Skinheads actually go out and kill Blacks (or pregnant Portuguese woman they mistook for Blacks) that therefor we should ... WHAT? Accept their sick Bigot Ideology? I'm pretty sure we live on the same planet. You know full well numerous Islamic countries have laws on the books banning various religious beliefs - or conversion to other beliefs. And with FULL and WIDE support of the general populace. Didn't Geoff post the percentage of "moderate" Egyptians who would like to see the religious profligates (like Christian converts) put down (or at least tossed in jail or fined)?
Come on Bells.
I can't believe you so Naïve as to think there's no connection between the fundamental core principals taught in Islam and the endemic religious bigotry perpetrated across the so-called Islamic world. Why are Indonesian Muslims (>90%) in favor of banning Ahmadiyya Islam - even to the point of putting them in prison (Muslims are even killed who practice it). That shit hasn't happened in Europe since the Dark Ages. How many public Hindu Temples are in the city of Mecca? Any? Are there any in Synagogues all of KSA?
Why?
Any ideas?
Why are citizens of KSA so bigoted against other forms of personal religious belief that they ban their houses of worship? Does anyone else do THAT?
This is not new. How many Buddhist Temples were built in Baghdad at the height of the Caliphate? None. Zero. Zilch. It's wasn't that Muslims didn't trade with Buddhists - considering the entire city block the Chinese Emperor build specifically for Muslims, complete with Mosques. The reason they didn't build any Temples were the same reasons Christians never built and Mosques in Europe - they were Religious Bigots. It's part and parcel monotheism.
Yes, there are 1+ Billion Muslims in the world. This means we need to look Islamic bigotry right in the face and do something about it. If there were 1+ Billion LDS Fundamental Mormons, with laws against apostasy, with laws discriminating against personal belief, banning belief to deadly effect, then they'd be the ones in the spot light. As it is, coincidence has, it's Islam.
We don't tolerate Racial Bigotry, why should be tolerate Religious Bigotry? Come on. Whites used to ENSLAVE Black people. We had a Civil War over this. Is THAT what this is going to come down to? More Religious War? Wouldn't it be better if we confronted this head-on, like we do other forms of discrimination? Why do we suddenly shy away when it's religion. Oh, that's right. Most people are Religious Bigots themselves. Christians.
Lastly, I have Muslim friends. I spent 5 hours with a Muslim girl whose father died and she was in tears. She's a pretty conservative Muslim. She knows I don't believe in superstitious non-sense. She does, she probably wishes I did. But, I don't. A close buddy of mine rang me just last night as I was cycling. He's Muslim. We have drinks all the time. He knows how I feel. I even mentioned my theory Mohammad was a Jew. Which admittedly was a long time ago. He was shocked. But, it's not like we sit around crapping on about religion. There's more important stuff out there to talk about. Like hotty totty's on the beach
I know a number of Muslims and Christians obviously. These guys have a degree of religious bigotry. They can't help it as that's the way they were raised to think. I know white people who think: You can't judge all Blacks the same - sum er good. Yuck Yuck. They have a degree of racial bigotry. I work on them and some change, some don't. But I certainly don't hate them. I hate the ideology they were brainwashed to believe, but I don't hate them.
Last edited:
Oh, and when I see >90% of Pakistani supporting the HANGING of a MOTHER. Because she's a Kafir. Yeah, I go INSANE. As we all should. Every single one of us should go insane. When I hear about a little child who is raped and the local Imam has her murdered. I go INSANE.
IN-
F-
ING-
SANE
I looked for evidence of a Shinto or Buddhist or Christian Priest who handed down a sentence of lashing for a girl being raped - I didn't find anything. Most societies don't allow the local religious fruit-cake to hand down judicial punishments anymore. Hundreds of years ago during the Dark Ages. Sure. Now. No.
IN-
F-
ING-
SANE
I looked for evidence of a Shinto or Buddhist or Christian Priest who handed down a sentence of lashing for a girl being raped - I didn't find anything. Most societies don't allow the local religious fruit-cake to hand down judicial punishments anymore. Hundreds of years ago during the Dark Ages. Sure. Now. No.
Bells
Staff member
This isn't a war Michael. And this should not be an obsession either.
I want you to think about this for a few minutes, Michael.
You are saying that the majority of over 1.5 billion people support the types of punishment handed down to this poor woman and others. You are saying that the majority of over 1.5 billion people support the actions of the few.
My..
How very Beckish of you..
But we do. Every day. We do.
And it is enshrined in your Constitution. Their right to their ideology is protected by your Constitution.
I am not sure. Did he? Do you have a link?
But again, you are saying that the majority of over 1.5 billion people support this.. or to use your words, give it "full and wide support".. That is a very broad claim and once you have not proven except with Glenn Beck style fear mongering from your pulpit.
Oh, I am here.
Religious bigotry exists in all religions. All of them. Tell me, how goes the protest against the Mosque at the sacred "Ground Zero" site? Remember the footage of the crowd almost attacking a man because he looked Muslim? Does that mean all Americans are white supremacists?
Oh so now it is all the citizens of the KSA? Not the leadership who runs the country like a tyrant? Okay.
Ermm.. You are aware that in countries like Pakistan, for example, it was the British who migrated the blasphemy laws there and put them in place? Yes? No?
At present there is a country with strict anti-blasphemy laws, which could result in one being arrested and jailed. That country is Ireland. Tell me Michael, why have you not protested about that? Not demanded "we" look at their religious bigotry and do something about it?
Should we storm their shores like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq? Shock and Awe?
You know, I find it ironic that here you are protesting about religious bigotry and how "we NEED" to confront it, yet your own country has attacked and invaded two Muslim countries and has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. But that is acceptable? That isn't bigotry? Oh wait, that is collateral damage and they're just Muslims anyway, right? What is the term used to describe Muslims? Ah yes.. "sand niggers".. You had a President who launched attacks on other countries, Muslim countries no less, and said he was told to by God. Or was that your country's way of 'doing something about it'?
So what are you going to do about it Michael?
Be bigots ourselves?
Invade?
Blow them up until they repent before you atheistic pulpit?
As an atheist, I find you disturbing and you make me uncomfortable because you seem to be obsessed with this.
We don't. Which is why we closed your threads.
Oh my..
Ermm.. Are you now claiming that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves?
I am an atheist and I find your argument about this repulsive.
Does that make me a religious bigot?
This is like when racists say they have black friends..
I can see why you are friends.
Okay then...
All that was missing from this little piece of theater is a couple of blackboards and dolls hanging from the ceiling.
Michael, you claim to be an atheist. But the zeal of your anti-Islam obsession is religious. Throw in a couple of 'Bless the Lord' there and have you dressed in a white suit with bad make up and you'd make a great TV evangelist that would make Sandy proud!
Yeah..
And yet, you do not rage when a rapist is not even charged because the prosecutor did not believe the unconscious woman was raped, even though the rapist confessed, because said prosecutor believed she had had an abortion years before? You do not rage that underage rape victims could be charged as being accessories to the crimes committed against them? You don't rage or go insane that armed forces are using children as human shields? You don't rage that your country sat back and stymied all attempts to stop the genocide of over 800,000 people? You do not rage that your country admits to torturing prisoners and holding people without charge for years on end in an offshore prison, rented from a dictator? You do not rage that African Americans were left to rot after a hurricane destroyed a city? You do not rage at the treatment of coloured people in white countries around the world? You do not rage at the treatment of the Roma in Europe and their denial of even basic human rights in France and elsewhere?
Your rage is very selective Michael.
And very hypocritical.
Then you live in a very sheltered world.
Butting in
Ah, but which kind of 'but'?
Indeed! But this does also represent only a single case, whereas I do believe one can find anti-(Islamic) blasphemy laws from Morocco to Malaysia. The reasons for such a dearth are more vague. I could point to Christianity having mostly gone through its evil period; the lessons of the crusades being learned at least in part, and widely disseminated; Marxist pacifist movements in the Catholic church, for one; and the general lack of scriptural support for religious warfare in Christianity vis-a-vis the egalitarian message of Jesus (who, it must also be mentioned, was no fan of the Pharisees). But I do think that this lack of support delimits the kind of rabble-rousing that can be achieved for the ends of violence, so that it falls back on the defense or promulgation of an unspecific cultural heritage. The LRA wants a theocracy, but I wonder which readings of the NT it is they cite for this objective?
This might seem (Robert) 'Spencerian', but it is difficult to disagree with him outright on this issue.
I agree. And it is nowhere that you will find such connection between matters of faith and matters of state as in Islam. Islam is frequently described as a 'total life system' (both by Muslims and non-Muslims), and this conclusion is not drawn for nothing. Secularism has been refused by numerous writers even on this forum - Sam, who seems to consider herself a moderate, being the most notable. There have been others. I think this is probably representative, in conjunction with the wider rejection of secularism in the ME: the poll out of Egypt being notable and not particularly unusual in this respect. When you base a law on religion - the use of religion to instigate general law followed by (properly secular and humanitarian) constitutional boundaries being generally exempt - discrimination is indeed sure to follow. And it is difficult to find a system where such a basis is more overwhelmingly supported than in dar-al-Islam. Israel might occupy the same parameters...but Israel is but one country, whereas such laws exist the breadth of Islamic governance, and even unofficially outside the Islamic world within communities. I don't think the same is true of expatriate Israelis, by comparison. So perhaps Spencer is right when he takes such a position.
Agreed, naturally.
I think you need to consider these things on a case-by-case basis, and examine the events leading up to such requests; I admit that such requests are infrequent, and the details approaching their commission complex, but in order to make such a statement such connections would need to be investigated. I appreciate the difficulties of such a proposition, and I do sympathize, whatever our positions might be.
As above: and it would have to be clear how any such outrage constitues "abuse". And how it differs from the abuse of any religious members, Bells. I recall Sandy getting slammed innumerable times, for matters ranging from her self-stated looks to her religious convictions. While I disagreed with those in the majority - and some would argue she was trolling - it doesn't mean that what happened to her wasn't abuse. Christianity gets trolled rather a lot on here, for example, but rather than generalized statements, I think we can only examine cases.
Excuse me: where has Michael asked for it to be on the table? Where have I done so?? Let's not attribute falsely, if you don't mind very much. My impression was that he meant religious bigotry was still on the table in numerous other systems. I don't think he was advocating that it should be, and I certainly wasn't. I don't appreciate these word games.
? Is there such a case? Is there a law regarding this?
I think this line of inquiry might be a dead-end from the start, because your next stipulation is this:
This is kind of a problematic point, Bells. Are you comparing Holocaust denial - and let's not be in denial about what Holocaust denial is, or the motivation underlying it - to raising ethical questions about Judaism? If this is the kind of thing you mean by hate crime, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find people arrested for it in Israel, of all places, because it represents the core of a bigoted line of inquiry about the mass-murder of Jewish people. The objective of those so doing is rarely really in question, Bells. I should ask though: what do you mean by "questioning the Holocaust" specifically?
First, you'll notice those punishments are no longer used over here, and I can't recall any stonings in Judaism or Christianity for quite some time, unless you count the other kind of stonings; nor does stoning as a legal punishment seem quite probable in nations basing their laws in a dissant kind of way on either of those faiths, these days. I think I would disagree with the author's premise that Great Britain exported those things to Pakistan, unless there were evidence of such. I think it a bit unlikely, even with the short overlap of British colonialism in India (1600-1858) and the last noted piercing/burning punishment in Britain (about 1676). I should add that Islamic statutes on apostacy and the like were founded about the 9th century (minority opinion to the contrary in the 11th).
Theoretically, yes. But where exists the social component of the will to do so? Law is rarely held in strong opposition to general will; will in this case being supported by conservatism.
I'd be interested in seeing which ones do.
Yes, these things are so, and wrongly so. But they don't carry the weight of legal validation; nor do they jail non-believers, or even affect most non-believers.
Interesting: how so?
This is sort of a specious argument; if the US acted in the hegemonic fashion usually ascribed to it, no one else would be here either. But there is such a trend; and it does not behoove the argument to pretend that the case is so simplistic.
Yes and no on this point. Most people of any faith, or of none, simply get the hell out of the way of trouble: they stay the hell out of it. It's the firebrands and radicals - the interested parties, so to speak - who drive opinion and act. So the majority will often counts for nothing, being shepherded along by whoever acts. It should be noted, however, that majority opinion in Egypt, for example, is sympathetic towards religious conservatism these days, and that is a sobering thought. It should remind us of our dear friend Godwin's Law - not as predestination, but as potential.
Well, 'we' are not actually doing so. I suggest you take up the case with 'them' of 'those' that are.
Got a point there. Usually it's cannonades.
Anon to the ramrod; Froggie frigates off the port bow.
Ah, but which kind of 'but'?
Indeed! But this does also represent only a single case, whereas I do believe one can find anti-(Islamic) blasphemy laws from Morocco to Malaysia. The reasons for such a dearth are more vague. I could point to Christianity having mostly gone through its evil period; the lessons of the crusades being learned at least in part, and widely disseminated; Marxist pacifist movements in the Catholic church, for one; and the general lack of scriptural support for religious warfare in Christianity vis-a-vis the egalitarian message of Jesus (who, it must also be mentioned, was no fan of the Pharisees). But I do think that this lack of support delimits the kind of rabble-rousing that can be achieved for the ends of violence, so that it falls back on the defense or promulgation of an unspecific cultural heritage. The LRA wants a theocracy, but I wonder which readings of the NT it is they cite for this objective?
This might seem (Robert) 'Spencerian', but it is difficult to disagree with him outright on this issue.
I agree. And it is nowhere that you will find such connection between matters of faith and matters of state as in Islam. Islam is frequently described as a 'total life system' (both by Muslims and non-Muslims), and this conclusion is not drawn for nothing. Secularism has been refused by numerous writers even on this forum - Sam, who seems to consider herself a moderate, being the most notable. There have been others. I think this is probably representative, in conjunction with the wider rejection of secularism in the ME: the poll out of Egypt being notable and not particularly unusual in this respect. When you base a law on religion - the use of religion to instigate general law followed by (properly secular and humanitarian) constitutional boundaries being generally exempt - discrimination is indeed sure to follow. And it is difficult to find a system where such a basis is more overwhelmingly supported than in dar-al-Islam. Israel might occupy the same parameters...but Israel is but one country, whereas such laws exist the breadth of Islamic governance, and even unofficially outside the Islamic world within communities. I don't think the same is true of expatriate Israelis, by comparison. So perhaps Spencer is right when he takes such a position.
Agreed, naturally.
I think you need to consider these things on a case-by-case basis, and examine the events leading up to such requests; I admit that such requests are infrequent, and the details approaching their commission complex, but in order to make such a statement such connections would need to be investigated. I appreciate the difficulties of such a proposition, and I do sympathize, whatever our positions might be.
As above: and it would have to be clear how any such outrage constitues "abuse". And how it differs from the abuse of any religious members, Bells. I recall Sandy getting slammed innumerable times, for matters ranging from her self-stated looks to her religious convictions. While I disagreed with those in the majority - and some would argue she was trolling - it doesn't mean that what happened to her wasn't abuse. Christianity gets trolled rather a lot on here, for example, but rather than generalized statements, I think we can only examine cases.
Excuse me: where has Michael asked for it to be on the table? Where have I done so?? Let's not attribute falsely, if you don't mind very much. My impression was that he meant religious bigotry was still on the table in numerous other systems. I don't think he was advocating that it should be, and I certainly wasn't. I don't appreciate these word games.
? Is there such a case? Is there a law regarding this?
I think this line of inquiry might be a dead-end from the start, because your next stipulation is this:
This is kind of a problematic point, Bells. Are you comparing Holocaust denial - and let's not be in denial about what Holocaust denial is, or the motivation underlying it - to raising ethical questions about Judaism? If this is the kind of thing you mean by hate crime, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find people arrested for it in Israel, of all places, because it represents the core of a bigoted line of inquiry about the mass-murder of Jewish people. The objective of those so doing is rarely really in question, Bells. I should ask though: what do you mean by "questioning the Holocaust" specifically?
First, you'll notice those punishments are no longer used over here, and I can't recall any stonings in Judaism or Christianity for quite some time, unless you count the other kind of stonings; nor does stoning as a legal punishment seem quite probable in nations basing their laws in a dissant kind of way on either of those faiths, these days. I think I would disagree with the author's premise that Great Britain exported those things to Pakistan, unless there were evidence of such. I think it a bit unlikely, even with the short overlap of British colonialism in India (1600-1858) and the last noted piercing/burning punishment in Britain (about 1676). I should add that Islamic statutes on apostacy and the like were founded about the 9th century (minority opinion to the contrary in the 11th).
Theoretically, yes. But where exists the social component of the will to do so? Law is rarely held in strong opposition to general will; will in this case being supported by conservatism.
I'd be interested in seeing which ones do.
Yes, these things are so, and wrongly so. But they don't carry the weight of legal validation; nor do they jail non-believers, or even affect most non-believers.
Interesting: how so?
This is sort of a specious argument; if the US acted in the hegemonic fashion usually ascribed to it, no one else would be here either. But there is such a trend; and it does not behoove the argument to pretend that the case is so simplistic.
Yes and no on this point. Most people of any faith, or of none, simply get the hell out of the way of trouble: they stay the hell out of it. It's the firebrands and radicals - the interested parties, so to speak - who drive opinion and act. So the majority will often counts for nothing, being shepherded along by whoever acts. It should be noted, however, that majority opinion in Egypt, for example, is sympathetic towards religious conservatism these days, and that is a sobering thought. It should remind us of our dear friend Godwin's Law - not as predestination, but as potential.
Well, 'we' are not actually doing so. I suggest you take up the case with 'them' of 'those' that are.
Got a point there. Usually it's cannonades.
Anon to the ramrod; Froggie frigates off the port bow.
Actually, just a moment here.
1. Who is being protected from sanction? I've seen lots of posts and threads about the stupidity or evils of Christianity, and numerous of these contain considerable leaps of logic and hyperbole. One could call Judaism protected, I suppose, but even Sam seems to be of the opinion that it's the secularist cohort, not the religious one, that's responsible for the humanitarian crimes of Israel.
2. We're not actually discussing whether members should "complain because they cannot discriminate against a particular group", or whether bigotry should be tolerated on the forums. Rather, we're discussing trends in religious law as it applies to believers and non-believers in Islamic jurisprudence, the sourcing of such laws and their application. I don't recall agreeing to any such general label as you describe, or any such direction in the conversation. By implication you seem to be accusing me of "wanting to keep it on the table", and this is false.
Distinction without a difference, in this case. The religion in question defines itself as a nationality.
You seem to be using "national duty" to mean "obedience to the state."
I'm fairly sure that a "Jewish state" is going to legally privilege Jews over others. Just like every state privileges its own nationals over others.
Arabs are not "defined as non-Jews." Israeli don't consider Chinese people to be Arabs, even though they are not Jewish. "Arab" is an ethnic designation, and I see little evidence that anyone involved is having any trouble dealing with it as such.
Bells,
From WIKI:
Public opinion in Indonesia is split in three ways on how Ahmadiyya should be treated:
(a) some hold it should be banned outright on the basis that it is a heretical and deviant sect that is not listed as an officially recognised religion in Indonesia;
(b) others hold that it should not be banned because of the freedom of religion article in the Constitution, but also should not be allowed to proselytise under the banner of "Islam" on the basis that this is misleading;
(c) still others hold that it should be free to do and say as it pleases based on the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Which of the positions, if any, outlined by WIKI would you agree expresses Religious Bigotry of Muslims against Ahmadiyya?
Thanks,
Michael
From WIKI:
Public opinion in Indonesia is split in three ways on how Ahmadiyya should be treated:
(a) some hold it should be banned outright on the basis that it is a heretical and deviant sect that is not listed as an officially recognised religion in Indonesia;
(b) others hold that it should not be banned because of the freedom of religion article in the Constitution, but also should not be allowed to proselytise under the banner of "Islam" on the basis that this is misleading;
(c) still others hold that it should be free to do and say as it pleases based on the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Which of the positions, if any, outlined by WIKI would you agree expresses Religious Bigotry of Muslims against Ahmadiyya?
Thanks,
Michael
Bells
Staff member
Obsess much?
The crux of this issue, as it is on this forum, is not that you actually care about the plight of people who face human rights abuses. What is becoming very clear is that you are targetting rare incidents and using that to get on your 'bash Islam' platform. It was blatantly obvious in the other thread that was closed and in this one, where you are literally complaining that you cannot be a bigot.
You have consistently disregarded other human rights abuses by others, returning again and again, and pointing out how 'this happens in Muslim countries', etc. You have also made outrageous claims that amount to over 1.5 billion people believing that such abuses are warranted and acceptable, without showing any proof of your claims.
Michael, I understand you have a problem with Islam. That is becoming abudantly clear. No one here is saying that such bigotry is acceptable. I have yet to see anyone claim that it is acceptable. The notion or belief of "unclean" exists in ALL religions. Every single one of them. Yet you ignore all and focus solely on Islam. You ignore that in Ireland, you can be jailed for blasphemy. You ignore that your former President invaded another country because he believes God told him to.. Apparently that isn't religious bigotry. You ignore all that and focus on a guilty verdict in a country where blasphemy laws were introduced by Westerners... You ignore the fact that this will probably be quashed in the Appeal's court and focus instead on what villages in some backward area of Pakistan where education is scarce. And then you claim that over 1.5 billion people hold the same views?
If over 1.5 billion held the same views, we would not be here. You disregard all of this.. And you pick and select one issue and focus on that and apply it to the whole.
You wish to talk about religious bigotry? Sure. But apply it over all. Do not force it into just one basket and act as if it only exists within one religion. And if you are offended that Chi deems you unclean or because a woman refused to shake your hand, I would suggest you take it up with them personally. You will find that combating bigotry works best if you tackle it when it occurs instead of whining about it for days on end on an internet forum. Sure, you have found some support in the anti-Islam crowd on this forum. But most in that crowd and what they say would also fit in well on sites like Stormfr_nt. I am sorry that we do not allow you to bash Islam Michael. I am sure if you look closely enough, you will find sites where such rants are welcome.
Until you can prove that over 1.5 billion people on this planet hold such views, I would suggest you curtail making such gross generalisations.
The crux of this issue, as it is on this forum, is not that you actually care about the plight of people who face human rights abuses. What is becoming very clear is that you are targetting rare incidents and using that to get on your 'bash Islam' platform. It was blatantly obvious in the other thread that was closed and in this one, where you are literally complaining that you cannot be a bigot.
You have consistently disregarded other human rights abuses by others, returning again and again, and pointing out how 'this happens in Muslim countries', etc. You have also made outrageous claims that amount to over 1.5 billion people believing that such abuses are warranted and acceptable, without showing any proof of your claims.
Michael, I understand you have a problem with Islam. That is becoming abudantly clear. No one here is saying that such bigotry is acceptable. I have yet to see anyone claim that it is acceptable. The notion or belief of "unclean" exists in ALL religions. Every single one of them. Yet you ignore all and focus solely on Islam. You ignore that in Ireland, you can be jailed for blasphemy. You ignore that your former President invaded another country because he believes God told him to.. Apparently that isn't religious bigotry. You ignore all that and focus on a guilty verdict in a country where blasphemy laws were introduced by Westerners... You ignore the fact that this will probably be quashed in the Appeal's court and focus instead on what villages in some backward area of Pakistan where education is scarce. And then you claim that over 1.5 billion people hold the same views?
If over 1.5 billion held the same views, we would not be here. You disregard all of this.. And you pick and select one issue and focus on that and apply it to the whole.
You wish to talk about religious bigotry? Sure. But apply it over all. Do not force it into just one basket and act as if it only exists within one religion. And if you are offended that Chi deems you unclean or because a woman refused to shake your hand, I would suggest you take it up with them personally. You will find that combating bigotry works best if you tackle it when it occurs instead of whining about it for days on end on an internet forum. Sure, you have found some support in the anti-Islam crowd on this forum. But most in that crowd and what they say would also fit in well on sites like Stormfr_nt. I am sorry that we do not allow you to bash Islam Michael. I am sure if you look closely enough, you will find sites where such rants are welcome.
Until you can prove that over 1.5 billion people on this planet hold such views, I would suggest you curtail making such gross generalisations.
Bells I am a Bigot and I demand you put a Hijab on in public forums.
Ecaep
Ecaep
Bells
Staff member
Sure! When you dress in a white tutu and can dance swan lake.
Otherwise?
No.
I wear Jubah/Robes/Martial arts uniforms When Im not at work or going anywhere with a strict `Dress Code'.
So better get that scarf wrapped.
Bless
You're a poor representative of your nominal faith.
What are you talking about? Do you live on Earth?
Indonesians overwhelmingly support legally banning Ahmadiyya Islam. They passed the law last year. Did you miss that? And yes, hundreds of Millions of Indonesians support banning Ahmadiyya Islam. Poll after poll shows this. Which is why the LAW garnished overwhelming support and was EASILY PASSED. And Indonesia is a "moderate" Islamic country with "moderate" Blasphemy Laws.
Go to Pakistan and there you'll see real Religious Bigotry - Religious Apartheid via "Blasphemy" Laws. It's blatant and the support is OVERWHELMING.
Not to mention the millions of people who, in their daily lives, simply refuse to shake hands with a Kafir and express their Bigotry in this way.
So, I'm not sure which planet you live on, but on Earth there's hundreds of millions of Muslims who support Religious Bigotry as evidenced by Law. That's a fact Bells. It's not some pie in the sky whine. It's fact.
that doesn't make it one. I find that letting any religion declaring its self a nation or a nationality is dangerous.
I think your misreading what is meant by arabs defined as non jew
its arab=non-jew as in arabs are a not jewish people
what your saying is non jew= arab as blank is a non jew therefore an arab
the first one is the correct reading