FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are we not branded bigots when we speak out against Mormon poligamists abusing young girls? Why are we not told we must be talking about all Mormons?

To be fair, a lot of this is because 98% of conversations about Mormons result in everyone involved getting bored and curling up for a nap or just wandering off in the middle of a

Lol aye. But dear Tom, are you broad brushing all Mormons as dull, just because of a few unradicals?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually, the bigger problem is people like you who really do broad-brush attack Muslims, painting them as fundamentalist whackos by and large, but then disingenuously claim that that's not what you're doing, and that you're being unjustly tarred by "regressives."

The problem is so many are like you--they treat attacks on the radicals as attacks on Islam.

I believe if we used the word Radical or similar for Jihadis and Muslim for Muslims, we could more clearly avoid any impression of targeting ordinary Muslims who work and contribute to their societies.

 

[Warpoet]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

ld more or less said it. Hold people accountable for their actions and not the actions of all people who are part of the same religion, and afford them the courtesy of articulating their own beliefs before filling in the blanks for them and/or forcing them to prove that they're one of the "good guys."

It's a very simple rule, but in a post-9/11 world where Donald Trump got elected, many people think they're entitled to ignore it. And this being an atheist forum means there's plenty of them here who deserved to be called out for it. But you'll seldom see me tear into people unless that's what they're doing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair, a lot of this is because 98% of conversations about Mormons result in everyone involved getting bored and curling up for a nap or just wandering off in the middle of a

Lol aye. But dear Tom, are you broad brushing all Mormons as dull, just because of a few unradicals? ??????

#NotAllMormons

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The problem is so many are like you--they treat attacks on the radicals as attacks on Islam.

I believe if we used the word Radical or similar for Jihadis and Muslim for Muslims, we could more clearly avoid any impression of targeting ordinary Muslims who work and contribute to their societies.

I really don't think it makes any difference. Not when any criticism of Islam is equated with declaring all muslims to be terrorists, and not when the attack on Charlie Hebdo for example was met with cries of "how dare they print such things" instead of "how dare they kill them for it". The now infamous interview of Sam Harris by Cenk Uygur tells it all really. People don't listen to what you are saying as soon as you criticize Islam and instead hear what they expect to hear from the bigot they have imagined you to be. You've seen even yourself get leaped at by WarPoet here, when you've said nothing remotely unreasonable.

But I am fine with distinguishing regular Muslims from crazy radical ones, though I reserve the right to criticize Islam generally and indeed ALL muslims for being theists, which tells me that along with Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc, they are less than totally rational people.

 

[Warpoet]

You've seen even yourself get leaped at by WarPoet here, when you've said nothing remotely unreasonable.

I didn't "leap" at anybody. I hold people accountable for their behaviour and rhetoric, including citing bad sources; you obviously can't handle this, hence you hide behind the ignore function and take petty shots because you're afraid to address me head on.

But I am fine with distinguishing regular Muslims from crazy radical ones, though I reserve the right to criticize Islam generally and indeed ALL muslims for being theists, which tells me that along with Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc, they are less than totally rational people.

Backpedalling. You've most certainly, on many occasions, made it clear that you think Muslims are, by default, far less rational, and much more religious, than Christians, Jews, or Muslims. And when I showed you polling data disputing the second point, you said the respondents were all liars.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

 

[iolo]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

No - the human inability to read a text with any accuracy, let alone in historical context, is extremely small, and the current pressures on literacy are reducing the attention-span even further. 'The Bible' is an anthology of books from various periods, carrying different points of view. Our only hope is to stick to the New Testament minus Revelations if we want any sort of scriptural guide. The violent anti-Christians known in America as fundamentalists are no more encouraging than ex-criminal 'Muslims' in the West.

 

[untermensche]

I believe if we used the word Radical or similar for Jihadis and Muslim for Muslims, we could more clearly avoid any impression of targeting ordinary Muslims who work and contribute to their societies.

I really don't think it makes any difference. Not when any criticism of Islam is equated with declaring all muslims to be terrorists, and not when the attack on Charlie Hebdo for example was met with cries of "how dare they print such things" instead of "how dare they kill them for it". The now infamous interview of Sam Harris by Cenk Uygur tells it all really. People don't listen to what you are saying as soon as you criticize Islam and instead hear what they expect to hear from the bigot they have imagined you to be. You've seen even yourself get leaped at by WarPoet here, when you've said nothing remotely unreasonable.

But I am fine with distinguishing regular Muslims from crazy radical ones, though I reserve the right to criticize Islam generally and indeed ALL muslims for being theists, which tells me that along with Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc, they are less than totally rational people.

There are radicals in all religions.

A modern religion is the religion of the state.

In the US there are many radical believers of this religion.

And they cause far more harm than any Muslims.

 

[J842P]

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

ld more or less said it. Hold people accountable for their actions and not the actions of all people who are part of the same religion, and afford them the courtesy of articulating their own beliefs before filling in the blanks for them and/or forcing them to prove that they're one of the "good guys."

It's a very simple rule, but in a post-9/11 world where Donald Trump got elected, many people think they're entitled to ignore it. And this being an atheist forum means there's plenty of them here who deserved to be called out for it. But you'll seldom see me tear into people unless that's what they're doing.

So, the Warpoet way is *not* to criticizes Islam.

 

[laughing dog]

ld more or less said it. Hold people accountable for their actions and not the actions of all people who are part of the same religion, and afford them the courtesy of articulating their own beliefs before filling in the blanks for them and/or forcing them to prove that they're one of the "good guys."

It's a very simple rule, but in a post-9/11 world where Donald Trump got elected, many people think they're entitled to ignore it. And this being an atheist forum means there's plenty of them here who deserved to be called out for it. But you'll seldom see me tear into people unless that's what they're doing.

So, the Warpoet way is *not* to criticizes Islam.

No. Islam is a religion. Muslims are people. Muslims believe in Islam but Islam means different things to different Muslims. Criticizing Islam is not criticizing Muslims. Treating all Muslims as one monolithic group that agrees on everything is the wrong way to criticize Islam.

Perhaps this example will help you understand the difference. Suppose that a moderately conservative poster stupidly interpreted Warpoet's stance as "do not say anything bad about Islam". It would be wrong to say that all moderately conservative posters believe that stupid interpretation.

Judging a large group by outliers or a small unrepresentative sample is unwise and unfair - that is Warpoet's obvious position.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ld more or less said it. Hold people accountable for their actions and not the actions of all people who are part of the same religion, and afford them the courtesy of articulating their own beliefs before filling in the blanks for them and/or forcing them to prove that they're one of the "good guys."

It's a very simple rule, but in a post-9/11 world where Donald Trump got elected, many people think they're entitled to ignore it. And this being an atheist forum means there's plenty of them here who deserved to be called out for it. But you'll seldom see me tear into people unless that's what they're doing.

So, the Warpoet way is *not* to criticizes Islam.

To criticize Islam is generally to be critical of the Qu'ran, which I doubt anyone here would be against. Somehow some people think broadbrushing a religion because of radicals within it is being critical of Islam, which it isn't, it is merely broadbrushing a whole bunch of people.

Feel free to criticize Islam. Just remember what criticizing Islam actually entails.

 

[J842P]

So, the Warpoet way is *not* to criticizes Islam.

No. Islam is a religion. Muslims are people. Muslims believe in Islam but Islam means different things to different Muslims. Criticizing Islam is not criticizing Muslims. Treating all Muslims as one monolithic group that agrees on everything is the wrong way to criticize Islam.

Perhaps this example will help you understand the difference. Suppose that a moderately conservative poster stupidly interpreted Warpoet's stance as "do not say anything bad about Islam". It would be wrong to say that all moderately conservative posters believe that stupid interpretation.

Oh, very clever, LD. You know, I almost didn't notice your snide and flaccid attempt to try to dig me as a "moderate conservative." As usual, your wit is just too brilliant.

So tell me, if I want to criticize Islam, what does all this have to do with Muslims? Are you claiming Islam cannot be criticized as a religious tradition, and we must make careful distinction between different brands of Islam before anything can be said? Without you or Warpoet immediately chiming in: "Not all Muslims!"...?

Perhaps you don't agree, and that would actually be an interesting discussion, but let's say that Christianity and Islam are about the same in terms of heterogeneity. Interestingly, you and the usual suspects are totally silent when similar phrasing is used about Christianity, or Judaism, or all Abrahamic religions for that matter, an even less homogenous category! This is done routinely on these boards. And yet, only about Islam are we routinely reminded: "Not all Muslims!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps you don't agree, and that would actually be an interesting discussion, but let's say that Christianity and Islam are about the same in terms of heterogeneity. Interestingly, you and the usual suspects are totally silent when similar phrasing is used about Christianity, or Judaism, or all Abrahamic religions for that matter, an even less homogenous category! This is done routinely on these boards. And yet, only about Islam are we routinely reminded: "Not all Muslims!"

Feel free to discuss with Syed about how much his professed views aren't scrutinized.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, very clever, LD. You know, I almost didn't notice your snide and flaccid attempt to try to dig me as a "moderate conservative." As usual, your wit is just too brilliant.

You flatter yourself if you think I spend any time thinking about you at all.

So tell me, if I want to criticize Islam, what does all this have to do with Muslims? Are you claiming Islam cannot be criticized as a religious tradition, and we must make careful distinction between different brands of Islam before anything can be said? Without you or Warpoet immediately chiming in: "Not all Muslims!"...?

No. Apparently you did not understand "Judging a large group by outliers or a small unrepresentative sample is unwise and unfair "

Perhaps you don't agree, and that would actually be an interesting discussion, but let's say that Christianity and Islam are about the same in terms of heterogeneity. Interestingly, you and the usual suspects are totally silent when similar phrasing is used about Christianity, or Judaism, or all Abrahamic religions for that matter, an even less homogenous category! This is done routinely on these boards. And yet, only about Islam are we routinely reminded: "Not all Muslims!"

How about posting a link to a thread in which I participated and similar phrasing was used towards any religion because I think you are mistaken. Since this is done "routinely", you should have no problem coming up with a link.

 

[Warpoet]

So, the Warpoet way is *not* to criticizes Islam.

Logic is your friend. Try using it next time.

So tell me, if I want to criticize Islam, what does all this have to do with Muslims? Are you claiming Islam cannot be criticized as a religious tradition, and we must make careful distinction between different brands of Islam before anything can be said? Without you or Warpoet immediately chiming in: "Not all Muslims!"...?

Perhaps you don't agree, and that would actually be an interesting discussion, but let's say that Christianity and Islam are about the same in terms of heterogeneity. Interestingly, you and the usual suspects are totally silent when similar phrasing is used about Christianity, or Judaism, or all Abrahamic religions for that matter, an even less homogenous category! This is done routinely on these boards.

And yet, only about Islam are we routinely reminded: "Not all Muslims!"

You either don't pay attention, are reading through a biased filter or are just being plainly disingenuous. I don't give a shit what people say about the Qur'an, or Sharia law, or Muslims who actually do believe crazy shit.

When I "chime in," it's almost always - damn near 100 percent of the time - because somebody is trying to project that kind of shit onto all Muslims. We have numerous posters here who, in every single thread concerning Islam or immigration, barrel in and assert that Muslims are dangerous, inherently dogmatic and irrational with few exceptions, that they pose an existential threat to our way of life and that allowing them into the West will bring about the downfall of civilization as we know it. Do you see many posts here talking about Jews and Christians that way? No?

So then is it really that difficult to see why it draws the ire of me and others who care about maintaining a free and fair society without witch hunts and overt discrimination? Particularly in an era where we have a U.S. president who has said he actually wants those things? Why are you so pissy with us instead of the people here who routinely paint almost a quarter of the world's population as the enemy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't "leap" at anybody. I hold people accountable for their behaviour and rhetoric, including citing bad sources; you obviously can't handle this, hence you hide behind the ignore function and take petty shots because you're afraid to address me head on.

The problem is that you define any source critical of radical Islam as a bad source.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the Warpoet-approved way to criticize Islam?

There are many Muslims that don't hide their women under body cloaks, mutilate their girl's genitals, blow shit up. Many of these same Muslims march out against terrorism, some even risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. This implies Islam isn't the issue, but the radicals that use it to justify plenty of awful things.

We know this level of silliness is possible, because the Bible was used to both support slavery and abolition. It was used to support those fighting in the Civil Rights movement and those fighting against it.

Religion is fickle, which leads to inconsistent crap like this.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists. Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

 

[Warpoet]

The problem is that you define any source critical of radical Islam as a bad source.

Incorrect.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists. Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

No, the problem is that certain people here think it's their prerogative to paint ordinary Muslims as radicals without any evidence to back it up. And they've been rebutted more times than could be counted, but it doesn't slow them down at all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Incorrect.

We all agree that moderate Islam exists. Thus showing that moderate Islam exists isn't a rebuttal to anything we have said.

The problem is radical Islam.

No, the problem is that certain people here think it's their prerogative to paint ordinary Muslims as radicals without any evidence to back it up. And they've been rebutted more times than could be counted, but it doesn't slow them down at all.

Re your last point, the problem is both people who generalise on all Muslims as radicals and radicals themselves. The problem here is that some politicians amongst Muslim civil rights groups in the USA are also trying to shut down Muslim reformers.

The distinction here is the civil rights groups in the USA such as CAIR have objected to those who highlight problems in Islamic and Islamist societies. In many of these instances the atrocities and human rights violations in those countries violate the laws of those countries but enforcement is poor.

We can also attribute the increase in radical groups and radicalisation to the West war mongering in the Middle East and its aspirations for regime changes, all of which have produced a worse situation than before.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A modern religion is the religion of the state.

In the US there are many radical believers of this religion.

Yes, American nationalism is pretty ugly and I would agree with you that it can be as ugly as religion.

Does it act the same way? Should we treat it as one in an attempt to combat it. What do you propose as a solution to such nationalistic tribalism? And would you approach the religion problem the same way?