What is worse, racism or rape?

[Toni]

You write that as though you believed that there is a single monolithic Islamic culture. Or that you don't realize that Islam shares the same Abrahamic roots as Judaism and Christianity.

Where, exactly, do you believe religion comes from?


People are much more alike than they are different. Religion isn't the root cause or even the proximal cause of bigotry and misogyny.

Of course religion comes from people, and that herring is nice and red now. Yes, Islam is an Abrahamic religion, but it is not identical to the other Abrahamic religions otherwise it would be one of the other Abrahamic religions.

Yes, religion is a proximal cause. There exists scripture that is pretty explicit on topics of gender and how to treat people outside the faith. Many religions have scriptures that make similar comments, but among the worst is the way the scripture that is key to Islam comments on these issues. The religion is very tied to the culture, and while not all people of the faith share the abhorrent views, just as Christians eat shellfish, there is definitely a religious basis that supports the views. When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Where do those scriptures come from?

Why do people believe in the scriptures?


Do you really think that if we remove all religion that there would be no more bigotry or sexism?

Have you not read this board? Surely we have more than a few avowed atheists who embrace racism, bigotry and sexism without following any religion at all.

When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Indeed. And religion is not required.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course religion comes from people, and that herring is nice and red now. Yes, Islam is an Abrahamic religion, but it is not identical to the other Abrahamic religions otherwise it would be one of the other Abrahamic religions.

Yes, religion is a proximal cause. There exists scripture that is pretty explicit on topics of gender and how to treat people outside the faith. Many religions have scriptures that make similar comments, but among the worst is the way the scripture that is key to Islam comments on these issues. The religion is very tied to the culture, and while not all people of the faith share the abhorrent views, just as Christians eat shellfish, there is definitely a religious basis that supports the views. When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Where do those scriptures come from?

Why do people believe in the scriptures?


Do you really think that if we remove all religion that there would be no more bigotry or sexism?

Have you not read this board? Surely we have more than a few avowed atheists who embrace racism, bigotry and sexism without following any religion at all.

When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Indeed. And religion is not required.

Of course religion isn't necessary for aberrant behavior but religion is sufficient to cause a significant group to hold common aberrant beliefs and behaviors.

 

[J842P]

This is why Manphobia isn't a disorder but instead completely legitimate and rational.

You seem to be implying that Jason or maybe Derec wouldn't agree that men are more dangerous than women, or that this is somehow a controversial statement. I am almost certain that they wouldn't disagree with this obvious statistical fact.

I am a male. Now, I don't normally fear for my physical safety, but when I do, it has always been because of another male.

 

[J842P]

Where do those scriptures come from?

Why do people believe in the scriptures?


Do you really think that if we remove all religion that there would be no more bigotry or sexism?

Have you not read this board? Surely we have more than a few avowed atheists who embrace racism, bigotry and sexism without following any religion at all.

When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Indeed. And religion is not required.

Of course religion isn't necessary for aberrant behavior but religion is sufficient to cause a significant group to hold common aberrant beliefs and behaviors.

It is neither necessary nor sufficient, really, I doubt many things are either for something as complex as human tribal instincts. However, it is safe to say that religion is a huge contributory factor to out-group aggression in human beings. Especially so for the various flavors of Abrahamic, monotheistic religion, which as a rule, do not play nice with others. The two largest ones have spent the last thousand years or so spreading their faith around the globe by the sword.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it that people like you will talk about genetic differences between men and women, but as soon as someone brings up violence and/or rape statistics differences, you ignore it, argue against it, or scream "help, help, I'm being oppressed?!"

Where? I've never seen this. It sounds like one of those obvious statements that would not generate any significant amount of discussion by virtue of being non-controversial...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If religion were the problem

There is no THE problem. There are many problems. A lot factors create and catalyze bigotry, and religion is a huge one.

 

[Toni]

Where do those scriptures come from?

Why do people believe in the scriptures?


Do you really think that if we remove all religion that there would be no more bigotry or sexism?

Have you not read this board? Surely we have more than a few avowed atheists who embrace racism, bigotry and sexism without following any religion at all.

When you grow up learning that it is acceptable to abuse "the other", you then have the idea in your head that it is acceptable to abuse "the other."

Indeed. And religion is not required.

Of course religion isn't necessary for aberrant behavior but religion is sufficient to cause a significant group to hold common aberrant beliefs and behaviors.

It is neither necessary nor sufficient, really, I doubt many things are either for something as complex as human tribal instincts. However, it is safe to say that religion is a huge contributory factor to out-group aggression in human beings. Especially so for the various flavors of Abrahamic, monotheistic religion, which as a rule, do not play nice with others. The two largest ones have spent the last thousand years or so spreading their faith around the globe by the sword.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it that people like you will talk about genetic differences between men and women, but as soon as someone brings up violence and/or rape statistics differences, you ignore it, argue against it, or scream "help, help, I'm being oppressed?!"

Where? I've never seen this. It sounds like one of those obvious statements that would not generate any significant amount of discussion by virtue of being non-controversial...

Religion is simply a tool used to justify hostility and aggression towards those considered 'other.' The primary motivation is most often economic. Fear of other is an instinct which is exploited in service to greed/economic desire and it's all dressed up in religion so people don't feel bad about being bigots and misogynists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Islamic texts seem to reject rape, but some try to argue that imperialism in the text has examples of it, though. One could argue this back and forth, but, even so, religion seems to be near neutral. Therefore, I agree with Toni that it's a "tool." Things can be taken from it for good or ill and such disparity is easy to happen when you have a large illogical, magic book. From such a thing, you can "prove" almost anything you want. I think the motivating factors involved are high testosterone, pro-creation instinct, feeling pleasure, being really big losers, and the synergy of grouping into a tribe of really big losers in a patriarchal culture. The tribalism increases the lack of empathy for Others and the being really big losers increases the anger. Let's not forget that there are individuals who commit sex assault, too, and probably that is majority of the cases, not group acts, but patriarchy tends to hide the bad things individual males do, too.

 

[repoman]

No, the bad parts of religion is not really about oppressing other groups, it is moreso about oppressing the flock. Getting free money (or labor) free sex (adults and children). Think Jim Jones.

The hatred of others is more about keeping the nascent cult together. Then the cult becomes a religion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, the bad parts of religion is not really about oppressing other groups, it is moreso about oppressing the flock. Getting free money (or labor) free sex (adults and children). Think Jim Jones.

Religion is contradictory. Religion can be used for a tool for imperialism and peace, for fascism against the members by the leaders and being charitable to them.

 

[blastula]

Religions is a tool, a very powerful tool, but not all religions are the same. Some are more rapey than others.

 

[Toni]

If religion were the problem

There is no THE problem. There are many problems. A lot factors create and catalyze bigotry, and religion is a huge one.

Bigotry comes first. Always.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is no THE problem. There are many problems. A lot factors create and catalyze bigotry, and religion is a huge one.

Bigotry comes first. Always.

Why do you believe that? And even if that is true, religion is a catalyst so it remains a problem. Or do you say that religion isn't a catalyst either and only an excuse as you wrote above? If so, why would you believe that?

 

[abaddon]

Saying "it's religion" is like diagnosing someone with a tumor as "having a bad body". You can discuss the unlikely possibility of tracing all the various complicated matters of "context", throughout the body, that contributed to the formation of the tumor. Or you can say "something needs to be done with that tumor".

If anyone really thinks they can get anywhere (after having gotten nowhere after all this time) by saying "it's the religion", then can they be more specific about what to do about the religion?

 

[blastula]

If an unwanted behavior is in part due to religion, then a solution can involve considering the role of religion.

Why so intent on absolving religion? It's like someone has lung cancer and then trying to blame anything but tobacco. "Tobacco has little to do with it, it's really because of mitosis."

 

[Toni]

Bigotry comes first. Always.

Why do you believe that? And even if that is true, religion is a catalyst so it remains a problem. Or do you say that religion isn't a catalyst either and only an excuse as you wrote above? If so, why would you believe that?

Religion is created by people, who bring their points of view to it. These are altered and magnified as religious texts are written, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, etc.


For the most part, I think that most religions are an attempt to explain the world and how the world came to be, how people came to be, and how to live well as a people. The culture of the people writing the texts comes into play, and certainly the interpretations and translations bear significant marks of the predilections of whoever is translating and interpreting.

Personally, I think people are capable of thinking for themselves and making rational decisions and reaching rational conclusions.
I am not disparaging religion. I can see how it gives a nice, unified moral framework to a society or a people. It's where the bigotry and misogyny creep in that the problems come. And those come from people.

In this type of discussion, I try to think of any nation that asserts it is without religion and China comes to mind. Certainly, China does not have a long history of Abrahamic religions, but it does have a long history of misogyny and even racism.


Where do you think religion comes from?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For the most part, I think that most religions are an attempt to explain the world and how the world came to be, how people came to be, and how to live well as a people.

Sure, that's part of it. Other parts include control and manipulation of the populace by the priest class, a desire to be obedient to a higher power, and a desire for a strongly bonded in-group (which brings with it a hatred of the out-group).

Personally, I think people are capable of thinking for themselves and making rational decisions and reaching rational conclusions.

Perhaps if they are mere deists, but even then it is a stretch. People have a tendency to shut off their critical thinking when it comes to religion. Belief in imaginary friends is not rational. Faith, believing because you need to or want to despite a complete lack of evidence, is not rational. Confusing obedience for morality, which is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions, is not rational nor moral.

In this type of discussion, I try to think of any nation that asserts it is without religion and China comes to mind. Certainly, China does not have a long history of Abrahamic religions, but it does have a long history of misogyny and even racism.

Nobody has claimed that religion is the only problem. But it is a problem. Abrahamic religions are especially bad, and currently Islam is the worst of those. But even the tamest of religions, for example Jains and Menonites, who are a danger to nobody, trap themselves in backwards and self-limiting thinking that would do our society harm if it ever became mainstream.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But it is a problem. Abrahamic religions are especially bad, and currently Islam is the worst of those.

That is no doubt an empirically well-founded statement for some things such as non-state terrorism. The Islamo-Judeo-Christian texts, though, have no real difference. Or at least the Islamo-Judeo texts have no real difference. Both commit people to death for various ridiculous things and they deal with the same list of ridiculous "crimes." The reason that non-state terrorism is a vehicle of these big losers is because entire nations do not support them except in secret. Meanwhile, entire other nations will commit state terrorism against whole populaces that include them and innocent people. I am not making a justification for anything, it's just a description of what is there in a lopsided war that involves Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions on all sides. And of course this is a tangent...

The issue of rape and how that relates to Islam is based on claims. We don't actually have good numbers. So, it is not an empirically well-founded claim. It's the other factors that may be the most primary contributions to this...such as poor, big loser, male immigrants/poverty-stricken/crime areas. To review some things here...the Quran forbids pre-marital sex as well as adultery. In all but the rare case of a man raping his wife, therefore, rape is forbidden. I don't know about the rare case and the Quran's position on it, but it's probably not different from Judeo-Christian patriarchic tradition of saying the woman most obey her husband.

On the general cases here is the Quran:

Quran 5:5] …….. You shall maintain CHASTITY, not committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers. Anyone who rejects faith, all his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be with the losers.
[Quran 24:30] Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their CHASTITY. This is purer for them. God is fully Cognizant of everything they do.

[Quran 24:33] ……..You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then God, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.

which means allah forgives forced prostitutes for not being chaste because they are forced.

[Quran 2:191] …….. OPPRESSION is worse than murder. See also, [Quran 2:217]

On the flip side, I am sure you can find what you will in these books, such as hadith about imperialism and someone WHO WANTS TO will use that as justification for doing what they want.

So ultimately it's neutral.

 

[Toni]

Sure, that's part of it. Other parts include control and manipulation of the populace by the priest class, a desire to be obedient to a higher power, and a desire for a strongly bonded in-group (which brings with it a hatred of the out-group).

In other words, it's people. If it weren't religion, it would be (and is) something else.

Personally, I think people are capable of thinking for themselves and making rational decisions and reaching rational conclusions.

Perhaps if they are mere deists, but even then it is a stretch

.

I'm not talking about people in churches: I'm talking about people. People CAN think for themselves. They just don't always take the time and trouble to do so.

People have a tendency to shut off their critical thinking when it comes to religion.

Or whenever they are challenged.

Belief in imaginary friends is not rational. Faith, believing because you need to or want to despite a complete lack of evidence, is not rational.

Not rational, but it fulfills human needs very well. Faith is not just religious faith, you know. And it's not entirely irrational.

Confusing obedience for morality, which is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions, is not rational nor moral.

I disagree that confusing obedience for morality is the foundation of Abrahamic religions. Substituting obedience for morality is useful in some situations. I'm thinking about combat/military situations, specifically.

Nobody has claimed that religion is the only problem. But it is a problem. Abrahamic religions are especially bad, and currently Islam is the worst of those. But even the tamest of religions, for example Jains and Menonites, who are a danger to nobody, trap themselves in backwards and self-limiting thinking that would do our society harm if it ever became mainstream.

I don't agree that religion in and of itself is a problem nor that Abrahamic religions are worse than any other. I find them much less problematic than say, the multiple and warring gods of the Greeks.

I also think that people have the right to choose their belief system, even if it is one that you disagree with, or find self limiting. Adherence to any belief system is self limiting. That's the point: we have to get along and we all need to agree on a set of basic rules. Even animals do this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The overwelming majority of rapes in england is performed by, wait for it, white christian men.
Ignoring that is nothing but racism since your focus on muslims is not based on fact byt on your prejudices about muslims.
And your willingness to ignore the crimes made by people similar to yourselves.

The problem is that there's no credible statistics (I've seen) that shows that Muslims are over-represented in rape in the crime statistics any country. Not compared to any other group. Immigrants are slightly over-represented in the crime statistics. But that's true for any immigrants, from and to any country. Which can be explained that immigrants often have a lower status in society. Poverty and crime is correlated. It can also be explained by immigrants being less good at knowing how to bullshit their way out of a conviction. What works is country specific. None of the statistics shows any alarming numbers.

Denmark (which is comparable demographically, culturally and legally to Sweden) list ethnicity and religion in their crime statistics. Sweden doesn't. Just like Sweden they're super transparent with their statistics and it's all freely available on-line. Anybody can verify this for themselves. Muslims/Arabs aren't over-represented in Danish crime-statistics...what a shocker.

http://www.statistikbanken.dk

Until I see some credible support that any group of over-represented in the crime statistics, I'm going to call Shenanigans. All I've ever seen to support Muslim over-representation is mined statistics that don't hold water (not statistically significant) even after doing the simplest check.

I'm not denying there's Muslim gangs grooming young girls for sex. What I'm skeptical about is whether they do any more rape-grooming that white guys. Of that I'm less convinced.

If I see some credible data to back it up I'll switch "side" in an instant. I adapt my beliefs to the data.

I'm also not claiming that Muslim majority societies aren't horrendously misogynistic. They are. But there doesn't seem to be a correlation between Islamic misogyny and Muslim men raping more.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Bigotry comes first. Always.

Why do you believe that? And even if that is true, religion is a catalyst so it remains a problem. Or do you say that religion isn't a catalyst either and only an excuse as you wrote above? If so, why would you believe that?

You have your cause and effect muddled up. Religion is one of those social and rhetorical constructs that is literally WHATEVER ITS FOLLOWERS WANT IT TO BE. Religion doesn't catalyze bigotry, bigotry catalyzes the formation of radical/militant religions. Bigotted people gravitate towards religious interpretations that encourage and approve of their worldview and then contribute to those interpretations in their own ways.