Who should we hate?

Hi frako, That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about now. Right now, there are Islamist terrorists and indeed Christian terrorists, but modern Christianity doesn't strike me as being as intolerant and dangerous a faith as Islam, at least, not in most of its current incarnations. I point out again; critics of Islam, like Ayan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq need fear for their lives in a way that critics of, say, the Pope need not.And please, let's not waste our time on a discussion of Hitler's religious beliefs. It really isn't very meaningful. With all due respect, you know jack shit about what I fear or understand.I don't fear Islam. I think it is a cause for concern, but that is a rather different thing. I also think that Christianity is rather troubling, but in this discussion, we're mostly focussed on Islam. Yes, there are good bits and bad bits. If you look again, I think you'll find that I already alluded to that. Like all theists, most Muslims concentrate on the good in their faith. It's part of the everyday hypocrisy needed to be a member of most religions. The Quran is as vile in its misogyny as the Bible. However, in Christian societies, people have moved on, there has been progress. Muslim societies lag behind. I don't want to lay all of the blame for this on Islam, that would be idiotic, but nor do I think that Islam or the Quran are free from blame.It's not a matter of "Islam = bad, Christianity = good". I am not a Christian. I think both religions are false and foolish. I just think that Islam stinks that little bit more right now.Mutate and Survive.

To press the point home, I would suggest that misogyny and the like are cultural phenomenon, and that the dominant religious flavor of a region carries influence in a two-way relationship with cultural norms; that is, cultural norms are one of several influences on which religious flavor will be dominant in a region, and the currently dominant religious flavor in a region will also be one factor influencing that region's cultural norms.Religion is not the only factor that determines whether a culture will be misogynist or xenophobic or homophobic or what have you, and other influences over a culture can eventually topple a particular religious interpretation from its dominant position in favor of others. An example would be the US - while Christianity has always been the dominant religion since colonial times, the particular flavor of Christianity has shifted several times, and those shifts have affected and been affected by changing cultural influences.I don't think that one needs to oppose Islam in general in order to oppose misogyny - I think one can oppose misogyny in general, including those Muslims who are misogynist, while not opposing those Muslims who are not misogynist, regardless of which group is in the majority or minority.Misogyny has been on the decline in Afghanistan, where girls are finally being allowed to attend school, etc. There are still conservative groups who prefer the cultural context of the Taliban, but the fact that the schools are being built and attended at all while Islam remains by far the dominant religion means that Islam cannot necessarily take the blame, just as we shouldn't necessarily blame Christianity itself for the antisemitic words of Martin Luther.

The overall function of pattern recognition works and is quite necessary - how else will a child recognize it's parent in a park?So it works.Your beef is not with our instincts and behaviors, we need to do this, your beef is with those who manipulate those tendencies of ours and lead us to tribalism and who generalize our enemies for us.You can't fault humans for being lead, we're programed to do that, you fault those who are leading humans - ie. government, media, religion, etc. But you should recognize the fact that it's now Muslims and not, say, Russia and communism (although that one is making a slow come back in the media) as a clear indicator that it's not up to Americans who they hate and are going to hate. It's up to those who are herding the sheep.We are going to generalize blame, usually on a small scale - example: Five kids are playing outside, one of them breaks your window, the whole fucking group gets it. You remember that when you were a kid. Our parents kicked everyone's ass.The problem comes in when mass media outlets, who can broadcast to millions, generalize blame and create the tribalism and prejudices. I have this discussion, which always escalates to a huge fight, with my dad about Cuba. He says, "There was nothing we could do, Castro took over." But I always argue that there was plenty to do and one definite thing to not have done was leave the country.Muslims, these moderates that you are speaking about who speak up against the fundamentalist regimes, can take power away from those who are funding terrorist organizations, harboring terrorist, allowing terrorist training camps, etc. Fundamentalist regimes like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Saudi government, Yemen government, the president of Syria, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, etc. How? By voting. But ALL of these were put in office and got control with free elections (except for the Saudis).Hamas and Hezbollah, who have openly funded terrorist groups, were elected into office by the "moderates" you speak of. So they CAN take control, but it seems like they don't want to.Maybe the overall opinion in the middle east isn't against fundamentalism. But we shouldn't be working against what our guts tell us, that is a very necessary tool. We need to work against the media, religous institutions and our government who collectively (not together as in some conspiracy, relax Straggler!) control public opinion.Do you really think Buz would have a clue what's going on in the middle east if the media didn't tell him? No. You know why, because he used to fear the Russians but has since changed.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

So if we are going to isolate the blame for bad behavior in Islam, where do you (one and all) suggest that blame be placed?And what consequences should be awaiting those who do promulgate such bad behavior?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I broadly agree with what you're saying, but I still feel that religion, with its holy texts, acts as an anchor, holding back social progress. All religions are guilty of this, to a greater or lesser extent, but it's currently most prominent in Islamic cultures. Even in the West, Muslims are frequently very conservative.I think that views that have diminished in Christian culture, such as taking the Bible/Quran as the infallible word of God, are still common in Islamic thought, even amongst moderates. That cannot be a good thing. It's not just a matter of opposing those who are misogynists though; it's a matter of opposing innately misogynist philosophies. Since the Quran is extremely sexist, it becomes necessary to oppose Islam, as a philosophy. You can try and object to only those elements you deem offensive, but when faced with someone who earnestly believes that the Quran is perfect and infallible, you're facing an uphill struggle.You are quite right in depicting religion as being in a sort of feedback loop with culture, but I think that it is clear that the ideas within Islam itself are often innately dangerous. As long as moderate Muslims persist in maintaining certain dangerous ideas, such as infallibility, they will not get their house in order.Mutate and Survive

Hi Coyote, I'm not sure you can isolate the blame. The opposite approach may be called for; listing the long, long list of blame. The Quran, culture and tradition, the Haditha, various political situations, race, etc. There's plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, any transgression must be laid at the feet of the perpetrator though. In the case of Islamist terrorism, threats against cartoonists and the like, it's a hardcore of quasi-lunatic religious fundamentalists, a minority of Muslims considered as a whole. The only way is to address any individual case as an individual case. Where people break the law, regardless of religion, they should be prosecuted. If you think someone is behaving in an antisocial way, but they're doing so within the law, that's tough. Suck it up. Feel free to criticise them of course, but other than promoting moderation and tolerance on the one hand, whilst even-handedly enforcing the law on the other, there is nothing you or I or any government can do.Bummer huh?Mutate and Survive

But it is not an "individual case" that we are facing.Are you aware that the Saudi government has spent many billions of dollars (one estimate is 87 billion) to export to various parts of the world their extreme form of religion?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Maybe not, but if you actually want to do something - in the courts and within your constitution - you need to treat each case as an individual case. That is a central principle of the rule of law. Otherwise, you end up with collective punishment. Yes, I'm aware that sort of thing goes on. So what do you want to do about it? Ban all madrasahs? Ban all Saudi madrasahs? Ban mosques from allowing Saudi Imams? All of that would be over the top. The only way to combat extremists is by targeting them when they break the law. Otherwise what? Deny them their free speech rights?In Britain, some radical Islamists have been banned from entering the country. In most cases, I've supported that. But such things must be done on an individual basis. Blanket bans breach peoples human rights.Mutate and Survive

Don't forget, these are the folks that are denying us our free speech rights.Remember the lady in Washington who jokingly tried to promote a day to draw pictures of their prophet? She has had to enter the Federal witness protection program because of all the death threats. I haven't heard of any prosecutions of those making the death threats.Does there ever come a time when enough is enough? Or should we just let it slide and encourage more of this, while hoping for a "reformation?"Edited by Coyote, : grammar

Who is denying you your rights? I mean specifically who? Note that the answer "Muslims" isn't enough. Not quite true. She isn't in the Federal program, she's changed her name and identity though.I agree that in principle, people who make death threats should be prosecuted. But who is this in practise? Specifically who? Again, the answer "Muslims" doesn't cut it. Refusing to collectively punish all Muslims for the actions of a minority does not constitute "encouraging" extremism.What exactly do you suggest we do?Mutate and Survive

I'm sorry but exactly how are they denying anyone free speech?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

By threatening to kill anyone who exercises their free speech in a manner the extremists disapprove of.I should have thought that would have been pretty obvious.

Still don't see it.First, our freedom of speech is based US law. However, guess what, people living in other nations are also free to threaten us.NOW, if it was someone in the US, an individual, that made a threat, there MIGHT, only MIGHT, be a legal way to take action against them.Remember, it is not the speech we approve of that we should be protecting.If someone attempts to actually murder someone, then there are legal recourse in place.After all, even here on this board members have said I should be taken out and shot, and guess what, it was not a Muslim that made the threat.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's like how I would punch you in the mouth for calling me a bitch. You are free to say it, but there will be repercussions. I can't legally stop you from saying it, but I'll kick your ass for saying it. Certain muslims don't take too kindly to people drawing their alleged prophet, either.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.