Um, how are you determining this? Is there some experiment that can be run where Islam is removed and the results observed? For all you know, but for Islam, troubled areas of the Middle East and elsewhere would be more violent and more oppressive (or more likely, unchanged). Again, violence and oppression predate modern religion by quite a bit.
My desire not to live in a war zone is not really informed by my religion, gender, or sexuality.
Do you consider transgenders to be homosexuals?
If so, you could make a case that other than being a dictatorship, Iran, where they have equal rights and surgery is free, would be preferable than the US.
I don’t think that you’ve really thought this through, or you’re going to redefine things so that you don’t come off hypocritically, but I simply cannot believe that you actually think this way.
Are you saying that there is NO concievable religion that you would find reprehensible?
A religion that deemed that every 2nd child born to a woman should be skinned alive and who’s adherents did just that?
A religion that practiced both human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism?
Are you really saying that, to you, there is NEVER an acceptable way to categorically reject such things?
Why would someone consider a transgendered person to be gay? It’s certainly possible, but not necessary. And I wouldn’t consider men and women to have equal rights in Iran, so a man who becomes a woman is going to lose some rights.
Dude, you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be because of “the specific form of Islam” but also “not because of Islam”. If Islam did not exist, how would that “specific form of Islam” have ever come about?
Bad policies enacted because they believe the Koran directs them to enact such policies is the fault of what, then?
Ben Affleck, you are not helping
[QUOTE=by Sadaf Ali (@SadafEXMNA) of Ex-Muslims of North America.]
…
This panel is much like many other panels on Islam: not a single person of Muslim background who has a vested interest in fostering dialogues about our families, our communities, the laws and cultural paradigms that form our lives, our livelihoods, and our journeys into and out of Islam, is present. It’s a panel of non-Muslims coming together to steer discourse that has little to do with them personally who have not a single clue what it is like to live as a Muslim or ex-Muslim in our continent or overseas.
I find this incredibly sad. I call this liberals and supposed progressives failing us. Badly. We wouldn’t find a panel on the racism faced by black people without a single black person on the panel acceptable. Nor would we have a panel on transphobia without trans folk. So, why would this panel be acceptable? It’s not.
It’s panels like these that further alienate us. When there are no people present who have a good grasp on the subject, it further enables how the criticism of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims because there are no Muslims or people of Muslim backgrounds there to speak for themselves.
I also want to make it clear that I understand where Affleck is coming from. I’m sure he, and many Muslims who enjoyed his display of anger on the show, have been enraged (rightfully so) by the constant racial profiling, othering of those who belong to Muslim communities, and of course, US foreign policy and militaristic interventions that affect our peoples overseas, our nation’s’ troops and the loss and suffering of human lives, regardless of a direct connection to them or their cultures.
I understand this anger. I once held the same anger, and to a large extent, I still do. Many ex-Muslims do. During the time I identified as Muslim and even after having left Islam, because of my name, because of the way I look, because I am Afghan, and because of the cultural disconnect I had with non-immigrants in a post-9/11 North America, I faced bigotry and racism.
Like many, I was at the receiving end of terrorist jokes. I was called Saddam Hussein for most of my adolescence. I was often asked if I was related to Osama Bin Laden or if I’m ashamed that an Afghan plotted 9/11. I was told to go back to my country, despite having been born and raised here to two, hard-working and strong refugees who escaped the throes of the Soviet invasion, civil strife, discrimination (middle-class Muslims were a target), bombs and violence. My life is predicated on war and intolerance. I’ve seen and heard it all.
Soon after I lost my faith, I was wholly unwelcome. I was ostracized. Friends and family shamed me for saying I don’t believe in god. My experience is benign when compared to some of the members of EXMNA. Many deal with physical, sexual, emotional, verbal and financial abuse. Many women are highly constrained by modesty doctrines and were forced to wear hijab or niqab against their will. Few were forced into marriages. Some were correctively raped for being queer by the person their families married them off to. These are stories about people in Canada and the US. These are people who deal with Islamism, Ben. It is important to have allies to stand with us. Standing with us is just as important as understanding that not all Muslims approve of this or will perpetrate such horrid things to people they claim to love all because of a lack of faith or even a progressive take on Islam.
…
[/QUOTE]
That was an excellent essay; thanks very much for bringing it into the discussion, Hank.
I definitely would reject such practices (as stated in post #218)! I don’t think such hypothetical religions can reasonably be compared to any existing religions, though.
I’d like to reverse this question, though. Have you really thought your belief through? Is it not bigotry to treat someone poorly because they are in an interracial relationship?
It’s not because of Islam as a whole, but it is because of that specific form of Islam. Just like killing abortion doctors is not the “fault” of Christianity as a whole, but rather specific interpretations of the religion.
I’m surprised this is that hard to understand. It seems very obvious to me.
It’s the fault of those who interpret the Koran this way, and the fault of those who execute the policies.
Which is pretty much exactly what Christians do. I don’t see any meaningful difference. I don’t think you can read this essay as anything other than a sweeping indictment of all religions, given the fact that there are plenty of non-Muslim decent people who minimize and metaphorize disturbing passages in their own religious texts. That’s what decent religious people do. They find meaning in the parts that reflect their own values and minimize the stuff that contradicts it.
Religion didn’t invent oppression. Humans invented oppression. Religion is a reflection of humanity, not the other way around. Theocracies of any stripe are harmful to humanity.
I don’t think there is a “True” Islam. What I do think is that Islam is a religion when combined with elements of poverty, strife, and violence makes for MORE violence and strife. There is no other religion operating today that does this.
Okay, that’s handwaving.
You don’t get to be the guy who decides that in this one case. There IS a religion that advocates killing every 2nd born child by skinning them alive; adherents who fail to do so or fail to participate in the ritual are damned forever and cannot be redeemed. Do you denounce that religion or not?
No, it isn’t bigotry. It’s a shitty thing to do. The bigotry is in the belief that it’s okay to do so because said people aren’t really people, not like “you and me” kind of people huh huh if ya know what I mean. 
But, only in so far as bigotry is “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”.
As I say tho, not all bigotry is wrong and not all bigotry will ever be eliminated; it’s a fact of human existence that we all make judgements and that there will be things which we simply do not wish to tolerate.
Problems arise when people begin to act based on their bigotry. And even then, not all acts based on bigotry are bad, or at least, they are not bad to the same degree.
For instance, there are people who hate homosexuals. Well, I would have a huge problem with them assaulting and even killing gay people, to the point that I would encourage a way to forbid it and to ensure that it happens as close to “never” as possible. However, I would oppose efforts to forbid the same people from holding a concert to raise funds and awareness of their views.
On a personal note, I am completely intolerant of klezmer filking. I will seek to escape it and if restrained will resort to violence in order to flee. I absolutely hate it and do not want to ever be around it, experience it, etc. So I’m a klezmer filk bigot. And who the fuck cares? Am I morally repugnant because of my bigotry? :dubious:
In this thread, IMO, you’ve been tossing “bigotry” around in this thread for a couple of pages now in an effort to shut down the conversation, as described in that first link that Hank Beecher posted. And it’s a tactic that isn’t serving you or the discussion well.
Islam IS a religion. The words of it’s holy book ARE being used to justify violence. And people who are Muslims are doing it. Sometimes political violence is justified with the words from the Quran, sometimes social violence is justified with words from the Quran, and sometimes it’s plain old religious violence being justified with words from the Quran. To deny the influence of the words of the Quran, and to deny that those words are part of, indeed the basis of Islam… well, I’d call it, ah, somewhat inaccurate, let’s say.
Sure. Didn’t I already say that twice?
Okay, we’ll disagree here. I think treating people poorly because they’re in an interracial couple is definitely bigoted.
I hold the same view.
I’m not trying to shut down the conversation – I’m stating my views. I’ve said and done bigoted things in my life. I strive to not do them in the future. Every bigot should be free to say whatever they want. And I’m free to criticize them, of course.
I agree with all of this, and it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I know there’s some nuance here, but it’s true. You didn’t malign Islam as a broad religion in this paragraph, you didn’t malign Muslims as a broad group in this paragraph… in short, you didn’t say anything that I’ve been criticizing in this paragraph.
Two things are hard to understand here for me:
- The first thing that’s hard to understand is that you seem to be denying that the “specific form of Islam” is, in fact, Islamic.
And yeah, the people that killed abortion doctors did it because of their Christian beliefs. The words that they read that they used to justify their actions were in the Christian holy book and to the extent that anyone thinks those words came directly from their god and are thus the incontrovertible truth and MUST be followed… well, those people (and those words) suck and I don’t mind being bigoted against them.
B. What’s also hard to understand is how you think the words of the Quran, and the belief that they are instructions from an all-powerful being and MUST be followed, can somehow be given a pass on their stated desire and even commitment to carrying out those instructions, when said instructions specifically include your own death as well as the deaths of billions of other innocent people.
I don’t think you ever answered my question about where the people in Egypt who think death is the proper punishment for apostasy, etc.: what is it that you think those people are wrong about? Do they not believe what they say they believe? :dubious:
I think I mostly addressed this in my previous post, but I’ll recommend again that first link of Hank’s.
No, the first time you hedged you initial denunciation with the disclaimer that you didn’t think anything like that would be a real religion (which was hilarious considering the context of this conversation).
Okay, so now you’ve denounced that religion. Congratulations, you’re a bigot! How does it feel?
Okay, then you’re redefining words. Such treatment is bigoted and an example of a manifestation of bigotry. But that treatment isn’t bigotry in and of itself. The bigotry is the fact of the intolerance, not the manifestation of it.
Huzzah! 
Nope, you are trying to shut the conversation down. You wielding “bigotry” like I’ve seen people wield “harassment” or “negative attitude” or “rape enabler”.
Look, try this: stop using the concept of “blind unreasoning hatred” as a filter for people who are criticizing Islam (that’s what you seem to be doing, to me anyway). Instead consider the concept, that you yourself engaged in at the start of this post, of “reasoned rejection”.
And then ask yourself why someone would follow as literal instructions that included maiming and killing everyone on the planet that doesn’t at least claim and pretend to believe the same things you do? Would you “reasonably reject” such words or would you follow them? And could you reasonably reject anyone who followed them if you decided not to, or would that be “bigotry” and as such, something to be avoided?
I agree with all of this, and it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. I know there’s some nuance here, but it’s true. You didn’t malign Islam as a broad religion in this paragraph, you didn’t malign Muslims as a broad group in this paragraph… in short, you didn’t say anything that I’ve been criticizing in this paragraph.
[/QUOTE]