Well, if we’re clear that we agree on the point, it’s not worth pursuing he-said/she-said.
I would be interested in an answer to what I asked above.
Could you please explain exactly what you mean by “the Islamic world”? I’ve been following what I believe to be the conventional usage of the term to mean “Islam worldwide”, i.e., “all the world’s Muslims everywhere”, similar to the Arabic term Ummah.
You, on the other hand, seem to be using the term more vaguely to contrast with “the West”, and I don’t understand exactly what regions or cultures you intend it to include.
For example, do you consider Muslim-majority Albania to be “the West”, or “the Islamic world”?
Albania’s definitely not the West. WheN I refer to the Islamic world I refer to Muslim-majority countries.
Another case where I’m going to have to ask you to define what you mean by “the Islamic world”. Are you using it to signify only “Muslim beliefs” within certain regions or cultures? If so, which ones?
If not, then I don’t understand why you think that some non-specific “Islamic ideology” is a more “primary” mechanism of cultural transmission in specific parts of the Islamic world–say, Iran—than, say, Iranian nationalism is.
[QUOTE=Riemann]
What other mysterious force is now out there that’s causing Muslims to persecute and kill LGBT fellow-Muslims?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what you mean by “mysterious forces” in this context. Anti-LGBT violence in any culture is a complex social phenomenon with lots of interrelated influences, not simple causal “forces”.
To help me understand what you’re asking, could you explain what you think the “mysterious force(s)” are that are now out there causing some Jews and Christians to persecute and kill LGBT fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians (albeit on a far smaller scale than among Muslims)?
Let’s stick with majority Muslim nations.
Are you seriously arguing that in Muslim majority nations, nationalism is a credible mechanism for the cultural transmission of a desire to kill LGBT fellow-Muslims of the same nationality?
Or is there a more credible mechanism of cultural transmission - let’s say, one that the vast majority of the population adheres to, for which the penalty for apostasy is death, and with a sacred text that says explicitly “Homosexuality is evil, kill homosexuals”.
You’re the one claiming that there is some force (by which I mean a mechanism of cultural transmission) other than the obvious one, Islamic ideology. Since you haven’t stated one, to me it’s mysterious.
And I see you’re falling back on Christians-do-it-too-therefore-Islam-is-excused apologetics.
Look, the point is this. I don’t think anyone really believes that we’re genetically predisposed to hate gays. So, anti-LGBT bigotry is culturally transmitted. Wherever we can identify the mechanisms of cultural transmission of such ideas, we must fight them.
In most Muslim majority nations, whatever the historical root causes, it is the predominant Islamic ideology that explicity glorifies anti-LGBT bigotry. All moderates must fight that, and call out bad interpretations of Islam - which at the moment, is most of them - and support moderate Muslims. But if moderates say that Islamic ideology is currently full of bad ideas, and people (including other liberals) call us “Islamophobic” for doing that, they are falling for exactly the trap that the extremist Islamists want us to fall for - putting their ideology beyond criticsm. It’s the ideas that are bad, not the human beings.
Likewise, in the U.S., we must fight fundie Christian ideology. That doesn’t mean we hate every person in the Bible belt.
In Russia, it’s something else, I don’t know if it’s predominantly religion there. I have no idea what drives that place.
Muslims in the US are not representative of all Muslims. They are in fact a group that is arguably the least representative of all Muslims.
They’re the ones who were willing to emigrate to the US.
No, but that wasn’t what you said earlier. You claimed that “Islamic ideology is, by definition, the primary mechanism of cultural transmission in the Islamic world”. You didn’t say you were talking specifically about the cultural transmission of a desire to kill LGBT fellow-Muslims of the same nationality.
[QUOTE=Riemann]
And I see you’re falling back on Christians-do-it-too-therefore-Islam-is-excused apologetics.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: I see you’re dodging my question. No, the reason I’m asking you to explain your view of the causes of similar violence in those other religions is because you seem to have a habit of making rather vague statements or questions, and then criticizing my responses as though they had been in answer to something much more specific which you didn’t actually say.
So I repeat: To help me understand what you’re asking, could you explain what you think the “mysterious force(s)” are now out there that are causing some Jews and Christians to persecute and kill LGBT fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians (albeit on a far smaller scale than among Muslims)?
Who is calling you “Islamophobic” for saying that homophobic/violent/theocratic/etc. ideas in Islamic ideology are bad ideas, or for saying that these bad ideas are too widely accepted in current Islamic ideology?
Because that’s part of what I’ve been saying all along, and I haven’t been called “Islamophobic” for it, nor have I called anybody else “Islamophobic” for saying those things.
Huh? Surveys indicate that plenty of Muslims would be willing to emigrate to the US if it were possible for them, including 8 million adults in Bangladesh (or about 7% of the entire Bangladeshi adult population).
It may well be true that immigrant US Muslims are very unusual in being able to emigrate to the US, but I’d like to see a cite for your claim that merely being willing to emigrate to the US makes Muslims “least representative”.
In fact, if we’re running the numbers, the US has at least as high a percentage of the world’s total Muslims as Lebanon, or Qatar, or Bosnia, or Djibouti. I don’t see why US Muslims shouldn’t get as much right to be considered “representative” of the world’s Muslims as those countries’ inhabitants do.
Yes, I’m talking specifically anti-LGBT bigotry, which obviously has the greatest effect on people who live together. I’m not discussing international terrorism here.
Well, I’m not. In highly religious Christian countries, Christianity is certainly the primary mechanism of cultural transmission of ant-LGBT bigotry. The U.S. for sure, and certainly some African countries where gays are horribly persecuted.
There may be other more secular countries where the primary mechanism for cultural transmission is not religious. As I said, I don’t know much about Russia. And China has historically been extremely homophobic.
But really you’re the one who’s dodging my question.
Let me repeat the claim that’s obvious to most people, including moderate Muslims and gay Muslims, but apparently not you. Islamic religious ideology is the primary cultural mechanism by which anti-LGBT bigotry is transmitted from generation to generation in those majority Muslim countries that are extremely homophobic, i.e. almost all of them. Do you disagree?
It stands to reason. Why the hell would I need a cite for that?
Well, I could explain it, I guess, but it would be a long diversion.
Quite obviously because when your religion represents a tiny minority of a population, the interpretation of that religion may well tend to conform to the majority views of that culture.
Honestly, I think you’re just being obtuse now.
What makes a religious doctrine any different to a political one? There is a fair argument to be made that religious doctrines pretty much are political in nature anyway.
Are you really suggesting that there is no possibility for moderate/radical interpretations of political doctrine? because that is in direct contrast to my own real-world experiences and I simply can’t buy it.
I don’t disagree that the specific type of Islamic religious ideology espoused by homophobic Islamic-extremist bigots is the primary cultural mechanism by which anti-LGBT bigotry is transmitted from one such bigot to another.
But I don’t trust your semantic accuracy or precision enough to call it just “Islamic religious ideology”, undifferentiated.
:dubious: Okay, so how “non-tiny” does such a minority have to be before it can validly claim to be at least somewhat “representative” of the world’s Muslims?
Because India, for example, is less than 15% Muslim, yet that minority of the Indian population contains nearly 11% of the entire global population of Muslims.
What factors, in your opinion, make a Muslim population more versus less “representative” of Muslims as a group?
Because what you think “stands to reason” appears to be contradicted by facts.
For example, are you arguing that Bangladeshi Muslims are very unrepresentative of the world’s Muslims? Because ISTM that if over 7% of their entire adult population would be willing to emigrate to the US, that’s not really very unrepresentative of Bangladeshi Muslims as a whole.
Yes, but let’s not kid ourselves about what happens with religions. It’s not as though all these different “interpretations” of religions, some bad some good, were always out there competing for primacy. Religion is not a source of good in this world.
All religious doctrine starts out with a moral compass taken from its historical point of origin - i.e. essentially evil and bigoted by today’s standards.
As secular values change, religious doctrine is dragged kicking and screaming into line with contemporary secular moral values, with convoluted “reinterpretation” of texts. Slavery? Killing gays? Of course, God was just kidding with that stuff. You can’t believe we ever took that seriously? It’s a metaphor!
In the modern world, Islam is a greater source of evil than Christianity, not because it’s fundamentally any worse, but simply because in most of its incarnations it hasn’t yet been dragged far enough into line with modern secular moral values.
No. I said that one political doctrine can’t be reinterpreted into a different political doctrine, but the same religious doctrine can exist side-by-side with different types of political doctrines.
For example, fascist societies are not the same as liberal democratic ones. But people can hold, for example, Christian beliefs both in fascist societies and in liberal democratic ones.
Okay. Thanks for the witness.
In your last comment you claimed that you couldn’t see any reason why tiny minority Muslims populations might be different from large majority Muslim populations. I pointed out the rather obvious reason why. You comeback is now to say that such differences cannot possibly exist unless I can quantify them precisely?
Again, you claim to have conceded the point that the majority of the Muslim world, however defined, has a huge problem with anti-LGBT bigotry. Nobody is denyng that there are many moderate progressive Muslims too. So what is your point with this?
:dubious: More misrepresentation on your part.
What I said is that I don’t see any reason why a tiny percentage of the world’s Muslims in one country shouldn’t have as much right to be considered “representative” of the world’s Muslims as an equally tiny percentage of the world’s Muslims in a different country.
Neither one of us is wielding facts.
Does your native intellect not whisper to you that Muslims who strive to cross mountains and oceans to reside in the Land of the Great Satan might not be quite as devout as those who stand fast beneath the theocracies that they grew up in?