In what alternate universe do you live where Islam is tied to one specific ethnicity? That sort of comment shows an appalling lack of knowledge about the breadth and depth of Islam in our world. :dubious:
I assume you mean that few white-skinned Europeans are Muslim, or Buddhist, etc. Still, I think you would be hard pressed to get agreement that either religion is particularly tied to one specific ethnic grouping…
Substitute for “shows an appalling” to “is consistent with and appalling.” I don’t presume you to actually have that lack of knowledge.
Damn forums without edit functions… 
I didn’t say “is tied to one ethnicity,” I said “often tied to (or has high correlation with) some ethnicity.” (Bolding added for emphasis.)
Thus, for example, an extremely high percentage of people of Arab ethnicity are Muslim, an extremely high percentage of Indonesians are Muslim, an extremely high percentage of Hindus are from India, and so forth. The same might be said, I suppose, for Catholics, in that a very high percentage of (say) Mexicans and other Latin Americans are Catholic. There is therefore more to the religion than simply the “ideas.” Most people belong to a religion, not because of the “ideas” but because that’s what their parents taught them (that is, they belong by birth.)
Before anyone asks, I will preemptively point out that in many branches of Protestantism, you are explicitly not regarded as a member from birth, but must make a positive and free statement of affirmation before you are “in,” even if the vast majority of those who do so have been taught the tenets of the church from birth their parents.
Also–and I think this is close to what Dex is saying–whereas the majority of Arabs are Muslims and the majority of Irish are Catholics; Methodists, Bahai, and Jains do not (AFAIK) comprise the majority of any ethnic group, and so are (perhaps) less likely to be the target of racist opposition.
Again, this won’t wash. Most Arabs are Muslim, but that’s like saying most Europeans are Christian. There are Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, not to mention a couple minor offshoots, and that division makes the Protestant/Catholic division look like a minor disagreement over the menu at dinner. So it is only from the myopia of Euro-centered people that “all Arabs are Muslim.”
Not to mention the fact that you accurately point out that certain nationalities and/or regionalities are predominately Catholic, and that doesn’t even get into the areas that are predominately Orthodox, so your original post’s assertion that, “some religions (notably, the Christian branches) are defined by their ideas.” I personally think you would find yourself in a minefield of significant proportions if you were to attempt to differentiate criticism of religions on the basis of their “idea” basedness, for lack of better terminology.
Whoa, please. I’m not trying to stereotype, I’m just trying to deal with the issue of the thread: whether an insult against a group is a “personal insult” and therefore a rules violation. I said, when this first came up, that characterizing a group is stereotyping, and so probably shouldn’t be done anyway.
However, just because I think characterizing a group is stereotyping doesn’t mean that members won’t do it.
Now, in that context, the interesting question was raised, if there are groups that are bound by their beliefs/ideas, then is it OK to attack those beliefs? That is, would statements, such as “Republicans are money-grubbing pigs” or “Democrats are Communists” be personal insults (in the sense of our rules), in a discussion where some members have identified themselves with each party? I’m trying to wrestle with that, and I think there’s a range in which no, it is not a personal insult. That is, there are cases where you can insult the idea or group without violating our rules against personal insults.
At the other extreme, to insult some groups (such as by gender, age, ethnicity, race, etc) is certainly to insult the individual members in that group, and is a violation of our rules.
I therefore raised the question of dealing (at that level) with insults against a religion. On the one hand, the religion is based on beliefs, and so to attack those beliefs (and to insult the religion) is not a “personal insult” against members. On the other hand, if the attack on the religion is tied to ethnicity then it is a violation of our rules. That’s the only point I was trying to raise.
Is it possible to attack Judaism (a group bound by beliefs) but not attack individual Jews? Of course. The former is discussion/debate; the latter is personal insult (racism) and not allowed here.
Is it possible to attack Judaism AND in fact be attacking individual Jews? That is, to have racism disguised as discussion/debate? Again, I think yes.
And I think Judaism isn’t the only such situation. It might be possible to seemingly challenge Islam, but in fact be insulting Arabs. It might be possible to seemingly challenge Hinduism, but in fact be insulting Indians. It might be possible to seemingly challenge Catholicism, but in fact be insulting Mexicans. That’s the dilemma I was trying to raise, and that’s why I raise the point that religion can be tied to ethnicity.
That’s the only point I was trying to make. I was certainly not suggesting that “all X are Y,” only that there are countries/nationalities that are predominately one religion or another. Hence, the categories of religion and ethnicity are not as separated as (let us say) the categories of political affiliation and gender.
Fair enough, Dex, but I think if you re-read your first post addressing the issue, you appear to be generalizing a division between Christianity (a group you can’t attack and be attacking ethnically, since it is a religion defined by ideas) and everyone else (or at least Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, which you specifically mentioned), groups defined as “often tied to (or have high correlation with) some ethnicity.” (Your words, not mine). Of those, I think only Judaism is safely correlated in any way with ethnicity, such that you could conceive of an attack on the religion as being, in essence, a ad hominem attack. Of the rest, I think that any attempt to tie an attack on the religion to an attack on the personna of the member would have to be viewed through the eye of the attacker, else the distinction of Ideas and Persons becomes much to difficult to apply. Goodness knows I don’t envy you the job.
Sorry if I’ve not been clear. I’m trying to feel my way around this issue. I probably should’ve stopped with saying that it depends on circumstances.
Then Chronos proposed distinguishing groups that are bound by an idea. That sounded like a good clarification to me, but then I considered that Judaism (a group bound by beliefs) is clearly tied to ethnicity (although, please note, there are plenty of different Jewish ethnicities, such as Sephardic and Ashkenazic.) However, I didn’t want to single out one exception to Chronos’s classification system. And I think there’s little doubt that (say) Arabic ethnicity is highly correlated with Islamic religion. No, not 95% correlation, there are plenty of Christian Arabs, for instance, and sure, there’s difference within Islam as well. So I was just trying to feel around for examples: is it possible that an insult directed against a group (Sunnis, say) would be really an ethnic slur? If it is not possible, then we can rule that it’s OK to insult a group-bound-by-beliefs. If it is possible, then we can’t make such a generalization.
Anyhow, it’s now come up in Cafe Society in a practical application (always easier to deal with than the abstract.) The question is whether insulting “fans” is a personal insult, since, obviously, we have many fans posting. It turns out that, in this case, the posters were actually insulting a specific group of fans who wrote an anthology; insulting authors/entertainers/artists in Cafe Society is perfectly OK, that’s always been an accepted part of discussion. So this particular instance was got through.
However, it was unclear to a casual reader where the insult was directed. I suspect this happens in Cafe Society with fandom more than anywhere else, so that’s probably why I’m the most interested moderator. (There are certainly plenty of insults directed against political ideas/parties in Great Debates, but the moderators there do not generally consider such to be “personal insults.”)
The problem is, of course, that “fans” are a group identified by their ideas. Yet it seem clear that insulting the broad group of fans is, in many ways, insulting the individual posters. So, I think I’m going to have re-think Chronos’s issue. Just because the group is defined by ideas/beliefs/taste doesn’t mean that you can insult them…?
So, I guess I’ve thought my way around in a circle, and I’m back with: it depends, and I don’t think we can classify any further than that. I got a headache. Where’s my coffee?
Not too sure whether to think of your search for an answer as representative of Diogenes, or one of the three blind mice. 
I would be more inclined to say that there are two distinct groups called “Jews”, albeit with a high degree of overlap. There are those folks who are ethnically Jewish, but who do not share the Jewish ideas, and there are those who adopt the Jewish ideas, but who are not ethnically Jewish (and, of course, there are those who are both or neither). Of course, this doesn’t necessarily make the decision any easier: When someone is talking about Jews as a group, it’s not necessarily clear which group is being referred to.
I’m not aware of antiSemites checking one’s shul attendance. Historically attacks have been independent of beliefs, for the most part.
As far as I’ve seen, attacks on Islam have actually been attacks on highly Islamic ethnic groups. Many of the attackers would be surprised at Indonesia being Islamic. An attack on specific precepts of Islam would be different. It all boils down to context, context.