European Islamophobia

[Martinus]

But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.

Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.

Ah, but when we had the French veil ban thread you were very much in favor of limiting the rights of others.  When you say you can dislike Islam but not dislike individual Muslims, does mean you dislike Muslims as a whole?

That's as much limiting rights of muslims, as banning human sacrifice is limiting the rights of worshippers of Kali.

[Viking]

This is hardly controversial stuff ...

They skipped the graven images one and split the old coveting the wife and ass into two commandments. Jewish law does not apply to Christians. In any case my position stands until you somehow show that eating shrimp or wearing mixed fabrics or working on a sunday are universally or to a large extent considered sin by christians.

[Viking]

is it bigoted to dislike nazis?

I don't think National Socialism is a religion.  Now you could say you dislike certain ideologies that are informed by religions.  For instance Rexism.

So one set of ideas gains special protection because that idea is that it is supernatural?

Are you arguing that ideologies should be treated like religions?  Because that's counter to what you have argued before.  "Atheism is no more a religion then bald is a hair color".

Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.

[Razgovory]

But that's the difference. I didn't say I dislike individual Muslims - I dislike Islam. Disliking individual Muslims based on my dislike of Islam would make me a bigot just as you disliking gays based on your dislike of homosexuality would make you a bigot.

Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.

Ah, but when we had the French veil ban thread you were very much in favor of limiting the rights of others.  When you say you can dislike Islam but not dislike individual Muslims, does mean you dislike Muslims as a whole?

That's as much limiting rights of muslims, as banning human sacrifice is limiting the rights of worshippers of Kali.

Human sacrifice= wearing a scarf?  That's why we missed you Marty.

[Razgovory]

That's probably because, if what you say is true, you aren't really "Islamophobic". A true Islamophobe is far more likely to argue that there is an essential difference between Islam and the other major religions (most especially, the one his culture follows in the majority) - that it is Islam, and not culture more generally, that is 'the problem'.

Could be - I think the only person to call me Islamophobic was Raz so I probably shouldnt worry too much.

But seriously, my views are fairly similar to those of Bill Maher - and he has been accused of racism and islamophobia by some segments of the left.

Uh... That's cause you live in Poland.

[Razgovory]

Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.

Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same?  For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?

[garbon]

Yes. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. What you think about government spending or gun rights or the chinese plan for the nicaragua canal is subject to criticism and you are subject to mockery and ridicule for thinking the world is flat or thinking that vaccines cause autism.

Just to be sure, are you saying that religions and ideas should be treated the same?  For all intents and purposes Atheism is a secular religion?

[Razgovory]

Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well.  Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.

[garbon]

Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well.  Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.

He said that both should be treated as ideas but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that they are the same.

You and I are people and I think we should both be treated as people but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that we are the same.

[Razgovory]

Well, it's counter to what he's argued before, so I think it's strange as well.  Maybe there has been a dogma shift in the New Atheist Movement.

He said that both should be treated as ideas but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that they are the same.

You and I are people and I think we should both be treated as people but that doesn't mean that for all intents and purposes that we are the same.

We are the same before the law.

[Sheilbh]

It depends on what is covered by "dislike their religion"; why and especially how matters.

Say you dislike a religion that is not your own because in your observation, believers tend towards a behaviour you find unpleasant. When talking about it, a bigot will consistently focus on the link between the behaviour and the religion, a non-bigot will not; when attempting to combat the behaviour, the bigot will focus on the link to the religion and try to combat the religion, the non-bigots will not; and when meeting new people belonging to the religion, the bigot will assume they approve of and indulge in the behaviour (perhaps secretly), the non-bigot will not.

It's the difference between noting a correlation and assuming causality.

Yep. It's an irrational prejudice against Muslims. I think your view on Islam is more or less irrelevant.

And of course Islamophobia isn't a perfect word. But irrational against Muslims (not Islam) does exist and Islamophobia's the word we've got.

Of course, Islam is a set of ideas, unlike homosexuality - so the comparison is not a very good one - but I don't have a problem with people who say they are, for example, disgusted with seeing two men kissing or the idea of gay sex - as long as they do not want to limit my rights as a result.

See that angers me. I'd tell the former to fuck off/kick up a fuss and tell the latter to stop thinking about gay sex

[Drakken]

I am going to go on a rant.

We all agree (mostly) that not all Muslims are violent sociopaths. Most Muslims I know are very good, welcoming, chaps. We all know, except a few intellectually dishonest, that all of this is the fault of a tiny minority of radicals; that we should hate Islamism but not Islam, yada yada yada. That said, the bottom line is, we don't see newly converted Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Gays or Republicans or Democrats run amok inside killing policemen, or run outside to battlezones to get to kill and rape and kidnap humanitarians to bleed them by the neck in front of a camera. These pigs have one thing in common, they profess a Muslim faith. Thus, it becomes as much a problem for "real", law-abiding Muslims than for us Westerners, and it should be so. Just them staying in the side and repeatingly screaming "WE are not causing this, it's not the fault of Islam but of a few monsters hiding behind Islamism to commit crimes" is not enough anymore. It's bullshit.

Perhaps when Muslim communities at large, collectively, start to feel some seriously unwarranted heat (like peaceful imams vocally being shut down, normal Muslims shunned in the streets, visas suspended and them threatened to be returned to their countries of origin) because of the acts of a tiny minority of barbarians, hiding behind their religion and in their midst to commit their atrocities, one day they will feel compelled to take action, physically root them themselves out of their collectivities, and throw them under the bus so that they stop hurting their own community. Because one day, these countrymen that have opened their arms wide to welcome them, sometimes to the point of spinelessly tolerating some of its most rabid anti-Western elements to spew their bile freely because we have freedom of speech, will start to lose patience. I really fear the recent attack will ciment a very real victory for Le Pen's and her National Front in France. More and more citizens are starting to feel defenceless and wanting to lash back, and others might stop to rely on the police and the military to protect them after the fact and take things into their own hands preemptively befor it happens.

And in truth, seeing how things are turning, I wouldn't blame them. It's not right, it certain not moral, but it stops being morally undefensible. We are collectively threatened by a bunch of thugs who want no less then our moral, if not our physical destruction.

That it is why it is critical that Muslims, publicly, vocally, and repeatedly denounce Islamism, that they actively cooperate with authorities AND hunt down Islamotards within their midst. Yes, they now need to show where their loyalties lie, that they are law-abiding citizens, because their silence can now be interpreted as tacit agreement and passive support. We all agree that collective guilt is not a good thing, but it does serve a purpose: get them to get rid of this problem by themselves and show they follow both the law and the rules of their host, before the host lose patience and kick all the guests out with a shotgun muttering "get off my lawn".

[garbon]

I should have stopped reading that the word rant.

[Jacob]

So, say, Drakkan - if a Muslim imam denounces the radical Islamicists and says the fighting and terrorism is unislamic to the point that he is stabbed or otherwise attacked on seven different occasions... is that the sort of thing you are looking for?

[Drakken]

I should have stopped reading that the word rant.

Except that I support and defend your right to disagree. I won't threaten to come over and physically silence you because you do.