European Islamophobia

[Martinus]

Would it be fair to dislike gays because of you dislike the core concept of homosexuality?

Why wouldn't it be?  Of course I am not sure what a core concept of a sexuality might be.

Let's say I don't like gays because I have a principled stand against men sucking cock.  Would that make me a bigot?  I think that's fair enough.

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.

[Martinus]

I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.

I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.

That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.

Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.

The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements. 

For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.

But that's not the case at all.

I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.

For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.

Islam's "core tenents" on homosexuality are exactly the same as those of Christianity and Judaism - and in fact are based on them: for example, the primary source on homosexuality is quoted as follows:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"Lut" = Lot; this is a reference to the OT story about Sodom (a story also, as you know, influential on Jews and Christians).

All three religions, traditionally and by their 'core beliefs', condemned male homosexuality, in similar terms. The main difference is how modern-day religious people enforce such prohibitions. All three religions have what may be broadly called "liberal" variants that contend that gay is okay (or at least not punishable). The difference is that most of the Islamic population is located in dark-ages-type countries and follows harsher varieties of the creed.

As can be seen, of Muslim-majority countries, the legal situation varies a lot, but in general majority Islamic countries are retarded in this respect (as in many others) when compared with the West:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

This is mostly a matter of the relative retardation of culture in those countries. In medieval times straight through to the modern era, the situation was exactly the reverse: better to have been a gay Turk or Persian circa 1800, than a gay Englishman in 1950 - witness Alan Turing.

In short, there is no rational reason to prefer the "cire tenents" of Christianity of Judaism over those of Islam when it comes to homosexuality, as they are the same.

Malthus not sure what your point is but I agree with you 100%. I don't think I have ever given an impression that I am a great fan of any established religion, especially of the monotheistic kind. I like the new Pope, but that does not prevent me from disliking catholicism, especially its retarded, Polish version. Just as I particularly dislike Islam as the most retarded of all Abrahameic religions (at least today) for exactly the reasons you mention.

[Viking]

I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?

[Martinus]

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?

This is the part that I find retarded - from an atheist/secular perspective there is no difference between a religion and an ideology - and there shouldn't be. Of course it's Raz and you said you are not interested in reading drivel. I'd rather read Quran than Raz's posts.

[Martinus]

I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?

Well, I suppose one shouldn't be judgmental though. If someone says they are a big fan of Hitler's work, they could very well mean vegetarianism and well organised train schedules, and you shouldn't immediately assume they mean Holocaust.

[Malthus]

Malthus seems to be under the impression that Jewish law was all transferred to Christianity. Uncircumcised christian bacon eaters would disagree.

Much of it in fact was. Christianity looks to Jewish laws taken from the OT, just not all of them: for example, most Christians believe in the 10 Commandments, and people would look at you funny if you claimed they didn't apply to Christians because they were "Jewish".

As it happens, homosexuality happens to be a case where, until modern liberalism, Christianity *did* look to Jewish law; and they had at least some support in the Gospels for this.

No christians believe in the 10 commandments, they believe in 9 of them and split one into to to keep the number nice and round. The reason tolerance of shrimp eating, pork eating, ass fucking, sunday working etc.etc. is that Christianity has rarely held the position that the jewish law applies. At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god and what is sin... which of course is done as if the law were a buffet where they pick and choose.

Various Christians and Jews number them differently; they do not omit any (except for Lutherens, who omit the prohibition on images). They are, in fact, the same "ten commandments".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Traditions_for_numbering

You are simply factually wrong on this. Until very recently, every major Christian denomination opposed homosexuality as sinful (and most still do), based on Leviticus, the story of Sodom, and various statements in the Gospels.

The notion that Christianity holus-bolus discarded the OT as a source of religious commandments (or ' At best they argue that the jewish law is helpful in understanding the nature of god') is simply unhistorical and wrong. 

[Viking]

they all omit the "Thou shalt not make graven images". Because, y'know

[Malthus]

I dislike Islam in roughly the same way that I dislike Communism. It is a disagreeable ideology that works against a free society, is oppressive to women and, at its extremes, is murderous.

I have met both communists and muslims that are good people of course.

That is 100% how I feel. Apparently, according to some people, that makes us islamophobic/racist.

Islamophobia isn't racism, but they do share some attributes.

The main issue is one of distorted thinking, of not seeing things as they are, but based on a negative set of generalizations based on extreme examples - conflating a large and confusing mass of contradictory data down into a simple story defined by its worst and most extreme elements. 

For example, a person who hated Christianity could point to the abortion clinic murders, the child sex scandals in the Catholic Church, the Ugandan death threats against gays, and the like. The problem of course is that not all Christians are the same, and sharing the same religion (at least in name) does not make (say) a unitarian minister type responsible for, or approving of, Catholic child sex scandals.

But that's not the case at all.

I don't dislike Islam only (or mainly) because of terrorist attacks or the actions of ISIL and the like - I dislike Islam because of what its core tenets say, about the subordinate role of women, about gays, and the like (to use your example of Uganda - homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, but not in most Christian countries). The violence committed by its members are just an "icing on the cake" for me.

For the same reason I dislike some forms of fundamentalist Christianity - but also recognise that there are many more positive elements in Christianity/Gospels than there are in Islam.

Islam's "core tenents" on homosexuality are exactly the same as those of Christianity and Judaism - and in fact are based on them: for example, the primary source on homosexuality is quoted as follows:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"Lut" = Lot; this is a reference to the OT story about Sodom (a story also, as you know, influential on Jews and Christians).

All three religions, traditionally and by their 'core beliefs', condemned male homosexuality, in similar terms. The main difference is how modern-day religious people enforce such prohibitions. All three religions have what may be broadly called "liberal" variants that contend that gay is okay (or at least not punishable). The difference is that most of the Islamic population is located in dark-ages-type countries and follows harsher varieties of the creed.

As can be seen, of Muslim-majority countries, the legal situation varies a lot, but in general majority Islamic countries are retarded in this respect (as in many others) when compared with the West:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

This is mostly a matter of the relative retardation of culture in those countries. In medieval times straight through to the modern era, the situation was exactly the reverse: better to have been a gay Turk or Persian circa 1800, than a gay Englishman in 1950 - witness Alan Turing.

In short, there is no rational reason to prefer the "cire tenents" of Christianity of Judaism over those of Islam when it comes to homosexuality, as they are the same.

Malthus not sure what your point is but I agree with you 100%. I don't think I have ever given an impression that I am a great fan of any established religion, especially of the monotheistic kind. I like the new Pope, but that does not prevent me from disliking catholicism, especially its retarded, Polish version. Just as I particularly dislike Islam as the most retarded of all Abrahameic religions (at least today) for exactly the reasons you mention.

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'.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I must admit that my hatred of Nazi ideas tends to bleed over on those who adhere to them. If I can't hate an adult for believing that evil is good then what can you hate people for?

The Nazi share of the vote peaked in 1933 at around 44%, I like to think that most of them were merely misguided, the ideology is utter anathema of course.

[Razgovory]

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".

[Malthus]

they all omit the "Thou shalt not make graven images". Because, y'know

Again, you are provably wrong. Did you not even look at my link above?

Catholicism, the most 'graven image' branch of Christianity of them all, retains that prohibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_in_Roman_Catholic_theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_in_Roman_Catholic_theology#Graven_images

While Catholics are sometimes accused of worshiping images, in violation of the first commandment,[36] the Church says this is a misunderstanding. In the Church's opinion, "the honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration', not the adoration due to God alone".[36][37] In the 8th century, heated arguments arose over whether religious icons (in this context paintings) were prohibited by the first commandment. The dispute was almost entirely restricted to the Eastern church; the iconoclasts wished to prohibit icons, while the iconodules supported their veneration, a position consistently backed by the Western Church. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the ecumenical council determined that the veneration of icons and statues was not in violation of the commandment and stated "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[38][note 2] At around the time of the controversy over Iconoclasm, the Western church began to use monumental sculpture, which by the Romanesque period became a major feature of Western Christian art, that has remained part of the Catholic tradition, in contrast to Eastern Christianity, which avoids large religious sculpture. The Catechism, using very traditional arguments, posits that God gave permission for images that symbolize Christian salvation by leaving symbols such as the bronze serpent, and the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. It states that "by becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new economy of images".[36][37]

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) explain the Catechism in their book entitled United States Catechism for Adults, published in 2006. Regarding graven images, they expound that this command addresses idolatry that in ancient times expressed itself in the worship of such things as the "sun, moon, stars, trees, bulls, eagles, and serpents" as well as "emperors and kings". They explain that today, idolatry expresses itself in the worship of other things, and list some as "power, money, materialism and sports."[40]

This is hardly controversial stuff ...

[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?

[Martinus]

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.

[Viking]

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'.

I'd argue that all religions are different due to their theology. What they teach makes them different. Religions are not competing brands of Unitarianism, their doctrines have consequences.

[Martinus]

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".