Are Americans losing it with Muslims?

[Hank_Beecher]

@Human_Action

Not identical, no, but similar - entrenched characteristics that are key to a person’s identity, and form a basis for discrimination. This is why such characteristics are commonly grouped together, e.g.:

Civil Rights Act
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

All persons, anyone, not all* ideas*. You are arguing against yourself. Ideas do not have rights in free societies.

Some “criticism” is, in fact, bigotry and/or racism. It’s not all that hard to spot the difference, given a reasonable sample size.

Some people’s identities are so tied to a self-image as hyper moral anti-racist crusaders that they have to invent racism and bigotry in situations where it is absent, imagining racists hiding in every shadow, in every sentence and paragraph that challenges them. Dismissing criticism of the ideology represented by the niqab as racist or bigoted, when so many non-white people are it’s victims, is beyond ironic. If any side in these arguments is revealing bigotry it is those who object to the criticisms on these terms, feigning offense at any non deferential comment about “their culture”, as if millions of brownish and blackish women are predestined, genetically or otherwise, to be denied a public persona, and that their male counterparts are all just meant to live in societies and communities where being openly gay or the least bit openly critical of Islam puts their lives at great risk.

[Hank_Beecher]

@tomndebb

I am not confusing anything.

Your persistent efforts to condemn the “ideology” while carefully never bothering to identify the various ideologies involved, lumping them all as “Islam,” demonstrates my point. The Islam haters will rationalize their hatred any way they can. Lumping or splitting as necessary and denying direct analogs with quibbling to avoid facing their actual perspectives.

Tom we are discussing the niqab in this thread, and by extension the ideology that it represents. Which, as you should be aware by now, is a sub set of Islam. This makes your post nonsensical.

[Magiver]

@rat_avatar

You forgot

Terrorism is not a uniquely Muslim phenomena or tactic. So while “Islamic terrorism” may be an accurate description of a particular sub-type of terrorism we view it as unimportant in any context outside of the fact it is more descriptive.

Except that it’s been demonstrated repeatedly that it’s not an infinitesimally small subset of Muslims who believe in the violence that continues to plague the world to this day. No other religion today breeds such a large list of terrorist groups. The violence we experience is directly attributable to the writings and actions of Mohammad.

The argument that since 80% of the Muslims aren’t rioting in the streets then it’s not due to the religion is a non-argument. Any percentage of 1.2 billion people willing to blow themselves up over perceived insults to a fairy tale is a serious problem.

The argument that it’s due to social conditions completely ignores all the other countries with poor social conditions whose religions aren’t spinning out of control. The most recent attack in the US was done by 2 people who by any definition were “living the dream”. They were well educated and financially sound. The attack was pure ideological bullshit. They both came from places where apostasy and blasphemy are considered by most as a serious crime. This is ground zero for those who want bump it up a notch.

If they would only kill the politically correct it would be a Darwinian process of elimination. But that’s not the case. Ignoring the violence in the hopes that it goes away is a recipe for disaster. What is happening in Europe was predicted and we’re watching it unfold before our eyes. Islam is a cancer to all the other religions who were capable of getting along with each other. The Middle East is nothing but a hell-hole of competing “religions of peace” vying for power.

[rat_avatar]

@Magiver

Except that it’s been demonstrated repeatedly that it’s not an infinitesimally small subset of Muslims who believe in the violence that continues to plague the world to this day. No other religion today breeds such a large list of terrorist groups. The violence we experience is directly attributable to the writings and actions of Mohammad.

The argument that since 80% of the Muslims aren’t rioting in the streets then it’s not due to the religion is a non-argument. Any percentage of 1.2 billion people willing to blow themselves up over perceived insults to a fairy tale is a serious problem.

The argument that it’s due to social conditions completely ignores all the other countries with poor social conditions whose religions aren’t spinning out of control. The most recent attack in the US was done by 2 people who by any definition were “living the dream”. They were well educated and financially sound. The attack was pure ideological bullshit. They both came from places where apostasy and blasphemy are considered by most as a serious crime. This is ground zero for those who want bump it up a notch.

If they would only kill the politically correct it would be a Darwinian process of elimination. But that’s not the case. Ignoring the violence in the hopes that it goes away is a recipe for disaster. What is happening in Europe was predicted and we’re watching it unfold before our eyes. Islam is a cancer to all the other religions who were capable of getting along with each other. The Middle East is nothing but a hell-hole of competing “religions of peace” vying for power.

And why do you get to cherry pick that case while ignoring the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, Las Vegas shootings, Charleston church shooting, and the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting which were not committed by people belonging to the Islamic faith??

Or do we only get to cite acts of terrorism that fit your posited world view? You have provided no evidence that the fact they were Muslim was the root cause of their acts.

[rat_avatar]

As a non-theist am I allowed to debase the entirety of the worlds Christian community as being terrorists due to the actions of the IRA/RIRA?

Cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republican_Army_actions

Or does the decrease in America’s xenophobic bias against Catholics over the past several decades require us to categorize those actions as peaceful loving bombings purely due to a lack of coverage by our mass media?

[T.M]

@Human_Action

Conform to what? Is there a law against covering your face in Britain?

If I try walking into a bank or shopping centre with my face covered I will be stopped but a Muslim woman covered in full Islamic dress will not be stopped and that is wrong, there are laws but the majority of Muslims ignore them

[rat_avatar]

@T.M

If I try walking into a bank or shopping centre with my face covered I will be stopped but a Muslim woman covered in full Islamic dress will not be stopped and that is wrong, there are laws but the majority of Muslims ignore them

So what you are saying is that we should bin the 1st amendment protections for religion and that the government should be able to prohibit the free exercise of religion for arbitrary reasons?

So lets force all employers to fully fund birth control, force christian charities to hire non-believers, require the Boy scouts to allow homosexual leaders to participate, and tax the hell out of church recruitment activities.

Or are you only advocating the free exercise of religion for people who don’t share your world view?

[T.M]

@rat_avatar

As a non-theist am I allowed to debase the entirety of the worlds Christian community as being terrorists due to the actions of the IRA/RIRA?

Cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_Irish_Republican_Army_actions

Or does the decrease in America’s xenophobic bias against Catholics over the past several decades require us to categorize those actions as peaceful loving bombings purely due to a lack of coverage by our mass media?

A wise Irishman once said about Ireland to many Catholics, to many Protestants but not enough Christians

[tomndebb]

@T.M

During the troubles I lived in a military town and we were bombed by the IRA, Two public houses I used in another town were bombed by the IRA luckily I changed my plans for the evening and went elsewhere. It became a natural reaction to become alert to a Irish accent. This did not mean that I held all Irish men and woman guilty.

Yet, now, you are quite willing to hold all Muslim people guilty.

I do not find this surprising, for some reason.

[rat_avatar]

@T.M

A wise Irishman once said about Ireland to many Catholics, to many Protestants but not enough Christians

An even more wise man defined the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.

This is a perfect example of the “ultimate attribution error” though. You will make a moral judgment and express outrage against a woman exercising her right to the freedom or religion due to a religious requirement that is in your “out group” Yet you will quickly dismiss violent action by members of your “in group” by hand waving it away through a “No true Scotsman” claim.

[tomndebb]

@Magiver

Except that it’s been demonstrated repeatedly that it’s not an infinitesimally small subset of Muslims who believe in the violence that continues to plague the world to this day.

Well,it has been shown to be an infinitesimal subset, but you continue to ignore or deny the evidence while pointing to polls of hypotheticals that do not actually represent actions.

@Magiver

No other religion today breeds such a large list of terrorist groups. The violence we experience is directly attributable to the writings and actions of Mohammad.

Piffle.

It has been shown repeatedly, (and dismissed and ignored buy you), that the factors leading to violence are much more political and economic that ideological.

[T.M]

@rat_avatar

So what you are saying is that we should bin the 1st amendment protections for religion and that the government should be able to prohibit the free exercise of religion for arbitrary reasons?

So lets force all employers to fully fund birth control, force christian charities to hire non-believers, require the Boy scouts to allow homosexual leaders to participate, and tax the hell out of church recruitment activities.

Or are you only advocating the free exercise of religion for people who don’t share your world view?

What I am saying is one law for all. The Quran only asks for people to behave modestly it does not demand that woman cover themselves from head to foot. The Quran does ask woman to save the beauty of their intellect for their husbands. While visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul I asked why Muslim woman covered their hair and I was told it symbolizes keeping their intellect for their husband. The only demand from the Quran is modesty

[Human_Action]

@andros

…which is, of course, an entirely different discussion about the nature of evil. And one that I imagine would provide a lengthy GD thread without ever coming near any strawliberal justifying or minimizing OBL’s actions using Phelps or McVeigh, unless it were to make the indisputable assertion that evil actions know no ethnic, racial, or religious borders.

Which, astorian, I urge you to remember.

Sure. I couldn’t let that comment slide as being “uncontroversial” when it is anything but.

@Hank_Beecher

All persons, anyone, not all* ideas*. You are arguing against yourself. Ideas do not have rights in free societies.

Eh? Adhering to a particular belief system, your claimed distinction, is something only people can do.

Further, it’s the activities of people that you’ve been complaining about: people wearing the niqab, for instance.

@Hank Beecher

Some people’s identities are so tied to a self-image as hyper moral anti-racist crusaders that they have to invent racism and bigotry in situations where it is absent, imagining racists hiding in every shadow, in every sentence and paragraph that challenges them. Dismissing criticism of the ideology represented by the niqab as racist or bigoted, when so many non-white people are it’s victims, is beyond ironic. If any side in these arguments is revealing bigotry it is those who object to the criticisms on these terms, feigning offense at any non deferential comment about “their culture”, as if millions of brownish and blackish women are predestined, genetically or otherwise, to be denied a public persona, and that their male counterparts are all just meant to live in societies and communities where being openly gay or the least bit openly critical of Islam puts their lives at great risk.

I don’t have to invent anything. Check out Magiver’s rant above, or Donald Trump’s various anti-Islamic slurs that are driving his popularity, or polls like this one or this one. If you don’t think anti-Muslim bigotry a) exists and b) is widespread, then we aren’t living in the same reality.

The ideology represented by the niqab isn’t Islam, but rather sub-sets of Islam. Feel free to criticize those sub-sets, as people do constantly, but don’t expect it to be a general license to attack all Muslims.

@T.M

If I try walking into a bank or shopping centre with my face covered I will be stopped…

Really? Have you tried it?

…but a Muslim woman covered in full Islamic dress will not be stopped and that is wrong, there are laws but the majority of Muslims ignore them

How is that wrong, exactly?

[rat_avatar]

@T.M

What I am saying is one law for all. The Quran only asks for people to behave modestly it does not demand that woman cover themselves from head to foot. The Quran does ask woman to save the beauty of their intellect for their husbands. While visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul I asked why Muslim woman covered their hair and I was told it symbolizes keeping their intellect for their husband. The only demand from the Quran is modesty

The Christian bible requires the stoning of unfaithful wives and the sale of raped daughters to the rapist…which illustrates the problem. If there is “one law for all” then there is by definition no freedom of religion.

[andros]

@T.M

What I am saying is one law for all. The Quran only asks for people to behave modestly it does not demand that woman cover themselves from head to foot. The Quran does ask woman to save the beauty of their intellect for their husbands. While visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul I asked why Muslim woman covered their hair and I was told it symbolizes keeping their intellect for their husband. The only demand from the Quran is modesty

And in different cultures, in different schools of thought, “modesty” means different things. Some consider a simple scarf appropriate, some hijab, some niqab, some chador, some khimar. Some burkha. Some nothing.

Why is your idea of modesty the correct one?

[T.M]

@tomndebb

Yet, now, you are quite willing to hold all Muslim people guilty.

I do not find this surprising, for some reason.

I do not hold them all guilty of acts of terrorism, but they are guilty of not doing everything in their power to put a stop to the violence. They always have the same answer we know nothing, over a thousand Muslims have left the UK to join ISIS and Muslims declare that they know nothing.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Gary_Kumquat

Take niqab, replace with “cross”. Take references to muslims, replace with christians. It becomes an identically valid statement.

No, it certainly does not.

The Islamic equivalent to the cross would be the star and crescent or Arabic calligraphy of the word Allah or of the Shahada. The burqa and niqab symbolize a strict fundamentalist strain of Islam, a portion of whose adherents are currently engaged in a highly deadly and disruptive campaign of terrorism against other sorts of Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, in West and North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Europe, and North America.

The garments are not symbols of oppression and intolerance only because many women live under mandate that they wear them at all times while in public. Many of the other beliefs that usually accompany the idea that it is a woman’s duty to hide herself like this are very dangerous. This horribly intolerant belief system is currently being manifested in various ways around the world, resulting in brutal oppression, mass murder, displacement, and widespread and extreme crimes against humanity.

Very many of the victims of this brutal system of life are hidden under burqas and niqabs. As are some of the perpetrators, just a few days ago women in Syria enforcing these strict modesty standards murdered a woman for breastfeeding in public.

So no, a burqa or niqab is not the Islamic equivalent of a cross pendant. As a potent symbol of religiously justified intolerance, it is closer to a Klu Klux Klan hood. The big different is that the level of violence and the amount of influence by the Klan in this era is minuscule in comparison to that of the strain of Islam represented by these garments. Of course another difference is the fact that those who wear them are at least as likely to be victims of the ideology they represent, as they are to be perpetrators of the injustices the ideology calls for.

Christianity can often be an oppressive, intolerant ideology (see treatment of homosexuals). It says many hateful things about gays, jews and non-christians generally.

It does. That’s why it’s important to be able to openly criticize it and say that it is a horrible system of beliefs on which to structure society.

Believe me, I’m more than happy with the starting point that all religions can (and have) been used as an excuse for evil behaviour. So do you suggest that we should ban all of them?

No, I suggest we mock them, and spread doubt among their believers about the silly claims made by them, and resist all of their attempts to manifest the religions anywhere near pubic life. Christians have mostly gotten used to this treatment and adjusted accordingly, to society’s benefit.

[Fear_Itself]

@T.M

I do not hold them all guilty of acts of terrorism, but they are guilty of not doing everything in their power to put a stop to the violence. They always have the same answer we know nothing, over a thousand Muslims have left the UK to join ISIS and Muslims declare that they know nothing.

All of them? All Muslims in the UK? None of them have assisted the authorities in apprehending terrorists and their supporters?

[T.M]

@andros

And in different cultures, in different schools of thought, “modesty” means different things. Some consider a simple scarf appropriate, some hijab, some niqab, some chador, some khimar. Some burkha. Some nothing.

Why is your idea of modesty the correct one?

The so called form of full Islamic dress does not have its roots in Islam but from a tribe in North Africa (Southern Sahara) where it is practical in protection from the sun during the day and frosts of a night and also very practical during sand storms.

[rat_avatar]

@T.M

I do not hold them all guilty of acts of terrorism, but they are guilty of not doing everything in their power to put a stop to the violence. They always have the same answer we know nothing, over a thousand Muslims have left the UK to join ISIS and Muslims declare that they know nothing.

And what have you done to stop the RIRA bombings, Planned parenthood shooting or our own governments assassination of women or children?

Have you stood up for my rights to be a non-theist? Did you do anything to try to prevent the Srebrenica massacres? Do you spend your free time blockading people from the actions of the westboro baptist church?

Or are the 4,000,000,000 people of the Islamic faith in the world under some special requirement to prevent all bad actions by a tiny subset of their population when Christians are exempt from the same standard?