Hating on Muslims isn't wrong

Why is Islamaphobia wrong?

One of my arguments against liberals who support Muslims, was that liberalism was usually against Christianity, or at least supportive of secularism and athiesim.

I also argued that people were too pro-islam and too pro-muslim. I explicitly used church-burning and satanic cults as an example of how hating against a conservative religion or ideology is acceptable.

In another case of religiously motivated hate, church was burnt down in the Nordic countries again, and I think it’s safe to say that of it had been a mosque, that there would have been far more controversy.

It is usually acceptable to hate on Christianity, Christians, and conservative Republicans. What makes Islam and Muslims any different?

Sorry. Your argument is that church-burning is acceptable, therefore islamophobia is also acceptable?

See, that argument is not going to find traction with very many people. And certainly not with any liberals.

Justifying one obnoxious behavior by stating (without proof) that another obnoxious behavior is “acceptable” doesn’t work.

It isn’t, so it isn’t.

I know you find it acceptable to hate a particular group (Pakistanis) but that doesn’t mean everyone else is ok with selective hatred, whatever the group.

Are you not ok with selective hatred of any group at all? How about ISIS?

So two wrongs do make a right?

There’s nothing about liberalism that says you can’t support secularism and atheism while not being “against Christianity” (or Islam, or any other religion).

Liberalism, as the name implies (related to Latin libertas, “freedom”, “liberty”), is fundamentally about defending freedom of thought and action. You do not have to be a supporter or opponent of any particular belief to defend other people’s freedom to espouse it.

You are accidentally correct in saying that mosque burnings are more “controversial” than church burnings. Because church burnings are universally condemned (except by the criminals who actually commit them), whereas mosque burnings are often condoned or excused by various Islamophobic bigots.

Indisciminate hatred against a whole group of people is always wrong, no matter what.

Hate the crimes - big or small, hate the culprits if you can’t help it but don’t hate innocent people who happen to belong to a group you dislike.

I’m European and less Americanized, so I’m unsure if there’s a cultural difference between Europe and USA.

Europe tolerates church-burners in a similar way to how Europe tolerates anti-christian death metal. They usually get lenient punishments and aren’t shunned by the general public… It usually dissolves down to a financial issue.

Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they are actively against religion. How many atheist wars have there been?

The point is that different people believe different things. So? Different people also like different flavors of ice cream. Why should that affect my opinion of them?

“Europe tolerates church-burners?” What the fuck are you talking about? Varg Vikernes was sentenced to prison for 21 years for a series of church burnings and a murder, and was so hated in Norway when he got out that he had to move to rural France.

As for “anti-Christian death metal,” it is and always has been very much a fringe genre. Venom is one of the most famous metal bands of all time and yet sold less than 100,000 albums in 20 years.

I’m European and I say that this is balls.

… Dupe

I suggest you read up on church arson in the Nordic countries (where it’s very common), and the French have always had a population that looked down on religion due to the country’s secular culture, especially Muslims (read up on the Burka ban).

He was only convicted for murder and that was nearly twenty years ago! Things have gotten more athiest nowadays.

We have anti-Christian death metal too.

Kalle Holm got six and a half years for burning a cathedral in Finland in 2006.

It’s no coincidence that you name these two together, because most church arson in Scandinavian countries is directly due to the “black metal” scene.

Whose members, by the way, hardly tend to be what one would call “liberal”. In particular, they’re opposed not only to Christianity but to all of what they call “Semitic roots” religions, including Islam.

That will answer itself once you look up what a phobia is. I think Wikipedia’s definition is quire fitting: “A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed.”

Liberalism promotes liberty and equality. Traditional Christianity has not always been supportive of these goals. Neither has Islam. Most liberals will be critical of both. On the other hand the liberty in liberalism means that liberals will be tolerant of their differing views as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others.

To my knowledge liberals do not typically engage in church-burning or satanic cults.

If someone burns a church in the part of Europe that I live in, there will be little to no controversy. There will be universal agreement in condemning the act.

Liberals will be at odds with conservative Muslims for the same reasosn that they are at odds with conservative Christians. How you get from this to suggesting that *hating *them is not wrong is quite unclear to me. Hate is a very unproductive emotion and not exactly a cornerstone of liberalism.

Who blew up or burned down black churches in the South? Hint: it was neither atheists nor liberals. It was white christians.