You have successfully excused murderous Islamic homophobia by contextualizing it. Duly noted. But the 49 dead gay people in Orlando are still dead and I still feel vulnerable and afraid.
One piece of advice that is making the rounds of gay society: If you and your Same-sex spouse are ever on a plane that is forced to land in a Muslim country, consider taking off your wedding rings and hiding them. Just sayin’.
And be afraid of the horrible Gideon hate crimes.
No you are wrong.
The only thing that was different in the Tangiers in the WWII and the early 1950s was the lack of the French colonial direct rule. And decolonization the typical attitude continued - your limiting to post WWII and 1950s is entirely wrong.
The situation of the cities like Casablana and Marrakech have noting to do with being a foreigner, we have some very flamboyant personalities, they are out, but discretely ambiguous.
This is not something limited, it is “repandu” but the western style Gay /Not Gay is not a native cultural framework.
The point is that yes, this culture has not evolved exactly in the line of the very recent evolutions of the West, but it is easy to look in the living memory where the status quo is hypocritically criticized by a certain kind of Other-hating Western view - and now because of the recent evolution the basis has flipped around.
First the discrete freedom was Degenerate but now that suddenly the West has started to lose its puritanical attitude, it is Degenerate from the photo negative view.
And the smug hypocrites self-congratulate themselves and make sweeping essentialist statements of the unchanging Other although it has no historical reality and is the pure hypocrisy and self-regarding congratulatory blindness.
And yet “Muslim countries” have had 11 female presidents.
It’s almost like they’re not a homogeneous whole. Just sayin’.
Exposure to modernity is in no way guaranteed to militate against Muslim anti-gay bigotry. In Britain, where I live, a recent Gallup poll showed that 100% of British Muslims consider homosexuality to be immoral. That is, at this time of writing, the one and only completely unanimous poll result I’ve ever seen. Results for Christians on the other hand - while still dispiritingly retrograde - show a long and sustained trend toward increased tolerance and acceptance of gays.
A second poll of British Muslims shows that 52% think homosexuality should be illegal. To be clear, they’re not talking about gay weddings or civil unions. They’re talking about homosexuality itself.
British Muslims are homophobic. All of them. Or near enough all of them as makes no difference. I’m not sure why British Muslims hold these views, but I am sure of two things. Firstly, they hold these views despite ample exposure to modernity. Secondly, scripturally speaking, they’re on pretty solid ground.
Having worked with British Muslims and East Europeans I’d say there’s nothing between them. I guess most people know how gays are treated further east in Russia.
Of course homosexuality was illegal in the UK until 1968. It was legal to rape your wife in the Uk when I was a law student.
Sorry, what was your point.
My perhaps mistaken understanding is that post-1956 when Tangiers was brought back under direct Moroccan rule, there was a fairly concerted effort to shut down brothels and generally crack down on “degeneracy” ( loosely defined ), such that most/many of the gay European ex-pats that had established themselves there gradually de-camped.
It was also my understanding that local authorities, while generally lax about enforcing morality laws, were much more apt to make examples of natives than foreign tourists.
All that said, I’m happy if my understanding is incorrect and you would know better than me :).
Don’t you realize how absurd your concerns are compared to the part that you’re apparently not concerned about? Namely, you are volunteering (non-seriously, I hope) to entrust your personal home address to me, a complete stranger on the internet, solely on the grounds that I’m not a Muslim. How idiotic is that?!
In your obsession with trying to prove to me that it would be foolish for you to trust any strange Muslims with your personal information, you’ve completely lost sight of the common-sense fact that it would be foolish for you to trust any strangers at all with it.
Here, to help clear up your confusion, is a handy guide to distinguishing among statements about privacy and bigotry:
“I don’t want any internet strangers knowing my home address.” Eminently sensible and prudent, because one never knows when some random internet stranger might turn out to be a malevolent wackjob.
“I don’t want any violent homophobic Islamist-extremists knowing my home address.” Even more sensible and prudent, because one already does know that those particular strangers are malevolent wackjobs, and it would be prima facie unwise to trust any of them as far as one could throw a post hole.
“I don’t want any Muslims knowing my home address.” Bzzzt: bigoted and illogical. The average random Muslim internet stranger, statistically speaking, does not pose any greater danger to you than the average random non-Muslim internet stranger.
We’ve been through this same statistical wrangle many times before on these boards, most recently IIRC with regard to screening passengers on airplanes. It is perennially difficult for the non-mathematically-inclined to get their heads around the fact that although there is a statistically significant disproportionate likelihood that a randomly selected terrorist perpetrator will turn out to be Muslim, there is not a statistically significant disproportionate likelihood that a randomly selected Muslim will turn out to be a terrorist.
A religious belief that homosexuality is wrong does not itself ‘drive violence’, unless it’s state sanctioned violence where that religious belief is contained in the law. So that breaks into two parts for the current situation, countries where homosexual acts are illegal (and sometimes draw the death penalty), and the unlawful acts of people in countries where the law does not punish homosexual acts.
The latter case is at apparently at issue in the Orlando shooting. It’s not about whether a religion does or can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality as wrong. It’s whether the person can also see support in the religion for acting against the law.
There are at least two aspects there relevant to Islam. First is the tendency since the beginning of the religion for it to be seen by its followers as a way of temporal governance. In other religions (Christianity, Buddhism, and others at times) it was often the case that religious organizations sought temporal power. They used to often receive it, though much less commonly in recent centuries. But at least theoretically theologically it was nearly always secondary: the founders were not earthly rulers, but Muhammad was.
Second and more directly relevant to incidents in the West, the perpetrators also see the governments of the countries they live in as illegitimate, in favor of a world Islamic government as ISIS (and Al Qaeda) purport or be or aim for. And the desire for such a government is Islamic, not a ‘perversion of Islam’. It’s to be hoped that the highest possible % of Muslims think the means of those organizations are a perversion of Islam, but the goal isn’t and I think that’s significant.
Any of the above explicit or implied comparisons among religions can be challenged at the margin with exceptions, but they are almost always historical or hypothetical cases. There is such a problem in Islam, now, non-hypothetically. A small but non-negligible % of its adherents in the West see support in their religion’s teaching for acting violently against the illegitimate governments, laws and society of the West.
Well I guess that settles it. Noted anthropologist up_the_junction has concluded, based on his extensive research of people he’s met at work, that levels of homophobia among British Muslims and East Europeans is entirely equivalent. I have a few questions, however:
Given that the Gallup poll I cited earlier showed, within a 2-4% margin of error, that 100% of British Muslims are homophobic, are you saying that 100% of East Europeans are also homophobic? If so, do you have any actual poll results to back this up?
Even if we assume, purely for the sake of argument, that levels of homophobia among British Muslims and East Europeans are exactly the same, what does this have to do with the enormous disparity in levels of homophobia between British Muslims and British Christians? My point, remember, was that exposure to modernity doesn’t necessarily provide a bulwark against religiously motivated homophobia.
I’ve worked with British Muslims and East Europeans, too. Oddly enough, the question of whether or not gays are people too never came up. What on Earth kind of work do you do where you can have these kinds of conversations?
And if you go down the atlas until you come to Iran you’ll find they’re treated even worse. What’s your point? I’m talking about levels of homophobia among Muslims in Britain.
Yes, the British gay rights movement has made great strides in a relatively short period of time. The question is why, despite these gains, are virtually all British Muslims so homophobic? Why do more than half of British Muslims want to take us back to 1968?
The poll result indicates that there is something specific about British Muslims for some reason - it makes the point that, for some unstated reason, British Muslims are far more conservative than French or other European Muslims. They put French Muslim acceptance of homosexuality at 35%. That’s approximately equal to your poll on Christians in the UK, circa the year 2000 (assuming of course that those who did not answer ‘homosexuality is always or almost always wrong’ thought homosexuality was ‘acceptable’ - the polls are not directly comparable because the questions are opposites).
Also, compare with the previously-cited poll re: Muslims in the US.
Putting this all together, it would appear that, for some unknown or at least unstated reason, British Muslims are unique among Muslims in Western nations - or that the there is some anomaly with the polling either in Britain or those other nations.
What it does not do, is show that there is something inherent in Muslims that requires homophobia. Rather, it shows the opposite: that different Muslims in different countries are, for whatever reason, different on this particular issue - and that in the West, the British Muslim example (or at least, poll) is the outlier.
Oh horseshit. Neither Ramira nor anybody else here is in any way attempting to excuse murderous Islamic homophobia, on the part of the Orlando killer or any other murderous homophobic Muslim. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.
Really Valteron, I make allowances for your being upset and not thinking very clearly, but some shit doesn’t get a pass.
Yes there was an imposition of law - it was hardly aimed at gays… If 15-20 years is “gradually” yes gradually - of course this in the same time period is the great economic decline and collapse of the Tangiers economy as its Free Zone status was removed and economic activity moved more and more to Casablanca… (and in the same time period of the repression of Hassan II who hated the Rifi) and it ignores Marrkech etc. So if you confuse the long decline of the entire european community in the Tangiers as it lost its economic role to Casablanca for a repression of gays, voilà…
encore this is true about every subject - foreign tourists on every legal point the police tend to be lax with - it is not on the morality laws alone, it is everything. they are afraid of the foreigners complaining and losing a promotion.
Replace “foreigner” for Chorfa and you get the same answer.
First of all, I’m not sure that this is actually the argument. Critics of Islam don’t deny that other religions have expressed hostility to toward gays and still do. In fact there have been rather ugly and public schisms within the Anglican Church over this very issue, so I don’t think anyone who is being fair could argue that only Islam has this problem of intolerance.
However, Islam does seem to have adherents who have an extremely unhealthy obsession with wholesale slaughter and violence in the name of a deity – to a degree that cannot be in any way reasonably compared to other religions. In that regard, Islam stands alone. Now if that is because the religion has been corrupted by nefarious religious opportunists, I can accept that to a certain extent. However, I would imagine that it’s hard to corrupt a loving eulogy, just like it’s hard to corrupt Martin Luther King’s Dream. You cannot turn unmistakable messages of love and respect for humanity into hatred. So what is it about Islam’s messages that allow people to corrupt it so?
Islam is not exceptional in regarding homosexuality as a sin and gay people as sinners. However, anecdotally speaking, I think it is safe to say that Islam is incontrovertibly unique in terms of the degree to which it almost universally, everywhere it is practiced, condemns gays, and combines this condemnation with the suggestion that violence is an acceptable means of redressing that offense. And even if it isn’t unique, does it really matter? As the families begin burying their dead sons, their dead daughters, brothers, sisters, best friends…is it really important to ask how we can be fair to Islam? I think a far more important question is, how can we arrest the kind of intolerant and violent ideology that produces 50 corpses and potentially 50 more at the hands of one person?
To help answer that question, can you articulate what it is about Christianity’s “messages that allow people to corrupt it so?” After all, you just got done acknowledging that Christianity too “has this problem of intolerance” with its “messages” turned into hatred against gays. Presumably, if we can understand how that happens in one religion, it will help us understand how it happens in others.
[QUOTE=asahi]
However, anecdotally speaking, I think it is safe to say that Islam is incontrovertibly unique in terms of the degree to which it almost universally, everywhere it is practiced, condemns gays
[/quote]
:dubious: Same-sex sexual activity is not illegal in many Muslim-majority countries, including (most of) Indonesia and Turkey, which by themselves contain over 15% of the entire Muslim population worldwide. So that condemnation is not by any stretch of the imagination “almost universal”.
Of course, even in countries where same-sex sexual activity isn’t illegal there are many Muslims who remain personally opposed to it, but of course that’s true for many members of other religions too.
Nobody’s denying (as I keep pointing out) that in the current historical moment Islam is well out in front of other world religions as far as the practical infliction of religious tyranny, oppression and bigotry are concerned. But once again, note how the situation you’re trying to peg as somehow essential and/or unique to Islam has changed in the course of recent history.
In the nineteenth century, on average, Christian societies were more harshly hostile to homosexuality than Muslim societies were; in the twentieth century, on average, those positions traded places. Obviously, you can’t plausibly explain such cultural shifts over the past two centuries by appealing to some hypothesized “essential” differences in foundational scriptures that are more than a thousand years older.
[QUOTE=asahi]
And even if it isn’t unique, does it really matter?
[/quote]
:dubious: In other words, “Even if my unsupported anecdotal speculations are in fact biased and historically groundless and invalid, can’t we just go on with the conversation as though I had made a good point?”
I don’t understand how you can have failed to notice that those two questions are fundamentally linked. We cannot arrest the kind of intolerant and violent ideology that has taken over much of Islam in the modern world by ignorantly and unfairly denouncing Islam itself indiscriminately.
Surely if we want to encourage change in some destructive aspects of a religion or any other cultural phenomenon, the first thing we need to do is to know a lot about it and to understand it accurately.
So perhaps we should start out by analyzing how we managed to solve another problem of the same sort. How did we arrest the kind of intolerant and violent ideology that produced 76 corpses at the hands of two persons?
I advocate fairness toward Muslims. Nowhere have I suggested otherwise. I would also imagine that as historically persecuted people, those very people who were murdered by religiously-inspired hatred would also probably argue for the protection and fair treatment of other minorities, be they people of other sexual preferences, races, nationalities, or religions. At the same time, they would also probably tell you that none of that with respect to Muslims is a precondition for demanding that the many Muslims who have negative and hostile views toward gay rights – and there are many – be held to account for these bigoted views that, at minimum, countenance aggression, and in some cases actually inspire and perpetrate it.
Oh that’s right, because for every Tim McVeigh there are probably now hundreds of equivalent radicals in the Muslim world. How many Tim McVeighs have there been since 1995?
Well, for the zillionth time, nobody here is denying in any way that the many Muslims who have negative and hostile views toward gay rights should be held to account for these bigoted views.
I’m just pointing out that vague ill-informed metaphysical maunderings about “what is it about Islam’s messages that allow people to corrupt it so?” don’t actually accomplish anything, either in holding those people to account for their views or understanding why they adhere to such views in the first place.
[QUOTE=asahi]
How many Tim McVeighs have there been since 1995?
[/QUOTE]
As many as there have been Mohamed Attas since 2001. In other words, none who actually carried out terrorism on US soil on such a large scale. Plenty who have planned or attempted similarly motivated attacks.
Did you miss the part of my previous cite that noted that during the past two years the feds have charged equal numbers of would-be terrorists of plotting or inciting such attacks in the name of Islamic State and in the name of various non-Muslim violent ideologies homegrown in the US?
This isn’t pointless whataboutery or “well they do it too”. This is the crucial issue of ideological violence needing to be understood and arrested in all its forms, rather than just compartmentalized as a specifically “Islamic” problem.
No, I get what you’re saying and I’m saying that it’s not important. We shouldn’t even be talking about Islam relative to Christianity - I am so fucking tired of hearing “Well Christians do it too”. Who the fuck cares? I’m not a Christian and I have been just as contemptuous toward violence based on Christian and Jewish superstitions as I am toward that which is based on Islamic superstitions. I don’t care. I don’t want to talk about Islam, relative to other religions or cultures. We’re having this thread of discussion because the perpetrator was influenced by Islamic culture. Whether he was a true Muslim, a good Muslim, a bad one, a non-believer…I don’t know and I don’t care. We could go around debating that until we’re blue in the face and until we get carpal tunnel syndrome. Not interested in moral equivalency and debates involving cultural relativism. Okay? Good.
No, actually that can accomplish a lot. Violence against blacks used to be a matter of “states rights” – until Emmitt Till’s mother showed her son’s decomposing corpse to a nation of shocked viewers. Calling people “faggot” and “queer” and physically intimidating used to be a matter of “boys being boys” – until the nation learned of the harrowing final minutes of a guy named Matthew Shepard, who was lured into a horrifying and brutal assault in the closing moments of his life. But it wasn’t those images or those details that changed minds. It was confronting the fact that bigotry kills. That is all that matters here. That is all that needs to be discussed here. When a black boy is murdered, we don’t need to ask “Okay, but was he whistling at a white woman?” We don’t need to point out that black men occasionally murder white men. And When a gay man is murdered, we don’t need to ask “Okay, but did he try to hit on the guy who killed him?” We don’t need to discuss the fact that gay men sometimes murder each other in love triangles. We don’t need to determine who else kills gay men. Enough is enough. I am well aware that Christians can be aggressive and violent toward guys – everyone else is. Nobody is enlightened by your pointing that out. We’re talking about whether Islam has a homophobia problem, and a violence problem, and it does on both accounts. Who cares whether other demographics do or don’t?
I just don’t believe it at all, and nobody else reading this thread or alive today does either. Muslims don’t believe it either. There have not been as many Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or other radical extremists.
People who want to know the actual causes of ideological violence are the ones who care about identifying it and understanding it in different ideologies.
People who lazily just want a reason to blame ideological violence on some vague generalization called “Islam”, of course, don’t care.
[QUOTE=asahi]
I don’t want to talk about Islam, relative to other religions or cultures. We’re having this thread of discussion because the perpetrator was influenced by Islamic culture. Whether he was a true Muslim, a good Muslim, a bad one, a non-believer…I don’t know and I don’t care.
[/quote]
I know you don’t know and don’t care, and my point is that your ignorance and apathy are counterproductive.
[QUOTE=asahi]
Not interested in moral equivalency and debates involving cultural relativism. Okay? Good.
[/quote]
No, ignorance and laziness are not okay and not good.
[QUOTE=asahi]
It was confronting the fact that bigotry kills. That is all that matters here. That is all that needs to be discussed here.
[/quote]
Then there’s nothing more to be discussed. We all agree that bigotry kills. We can just go around saying to everyone, and especially to violent homophobes (Muslim and otherwise) that bigotry kills. Great, I’m on board with that.
But it appears that that’s not all you think needs to be discussed here. You apparently think that part of what needs to be discussed here is a bunch of useless cloudy fartwhistling about “So what is it about Islam’s messages that allow people to corrupt it so?”
If we just want to denounce bigotry in general, which is a perfectly reasonable goal, then we don’t have to bother with specifying whether that bigotry is manifested in an Islamic context, a Christian context, or any other. But if we are interested in identifying and analyzing a specifically Islamic context of bigotry, then we need to understand its relation to bigotry in other contexts too.
[QUOTE=asahi]
We’re talking about whether Islam has a homophobia problem, and a violence problem, and it does on both accounts.
[/quote]
And as I keep saying, nobody at all is denying that Islam as it exists in the modern world has a relatively high severity of homophobia problems and violence problems. So why do you seem to think that that message is somehow being blocked or thwarted?
[QUOTE=asahi]
Who cares whether other demographics do or don’t?
[/quote]
Anybody who genuinely wants to understand why Islam in the modern world has an exceptionally pervasive homophobia problem and violence problem.
[QUOTE=asahi]
There have not been as many Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or other radical extremists.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that wasn’t the question you asked me about, of course. But in any case, why are you bringing up Christians, Buddhists or Jews here? I thought you said you “don’t want to talk about Islam, relative to other religions or cultures”? :dubious:
The fact of the matter is, asahi, you do want to talk about Islam relative to other religions or cultures—but only to the very limited extent of asserting that Islam is fundamentally worse than other religions or cultures.
When somebody starts seriously inquiring why Islam in the modern world has some problems worse than other cultures, and explores how those problems connect to problems in other cultures, you throw your toys out of the pram and pitch a tantrum about being so fucking tired of hearing about it.
Any derision you encounter is generated by the sort of hysteria that you demonstrate–very similar to the hysteria that Fundamentalist Christians demonstrate when they talk of a “War on Christmas” or how they are “being persecuted” in secular societies such as the U.S. and Canada.
A certain legitimate concern expressed in support for laws insisting on tolerance or some such is understandable. A personal choice to avoid embracing Islam (however you choose to express that choice) makes sense.
However, you live in one of the earliest nations in the world to decriminalize homosexual behavior. You live in the fourth nation in the world to recognize same sex marriage, (and several provinces recognized it prior to that). You live next to a province in which the mere whisper of the word “Sharia” caused the government to stop providing support to Jewish and Christian family resolution councils so that they could avoid providing the same assistance to Muslims. Among your less civilized neighbors to the South, same sex marriage has more support among Muslims (42%) than among Evangelical Christians. You have nothing to fear from Islamic homophobia changing the laws or the acceptance of homosexuality in your nation. The arrival of some number of Muslims is not going to reverse the attitudes of your entire nation, (particularly if, based on the experience of Europe, assimilation will generally cause the attitudes of their descendants to be more accepting of your sexual orientation).
Concern is fine. Opposition to various expressions of belief is fine. Your hand-wringing is over-the-top paranoia.