Islamaphobia: dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

Mormonaphobia: dislike of or prejudice against Mormonism or Mormons, especially as a political force.

I guess I'm Islamaphobic and Momonaphobic, since I dislike Mormonism and Islam, especially as a political force, given my preference for Jefferson's experiment in secularism.

Batshit crazy apocalyptic narratives seem to me to be completely at odds with democracy and our long term survival.

the theology of the religion.

Those are two different things.

Mormonism is was and is a cult based on a fraud.

Islamic culture has given much to the world in philosophy, medicine, art, science, music, mathematics, and literature.

You don't have to be some kind of "libtard" to recognise those historical and scientific facts.

Irrational fear of something is a phobia. Dislike of Mormonism because of documented falsehoods and fraud is not a phobia.

Give the intolerance a rest for a while.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2017 07:37PM by anybody.

Philosophy, medicine, art, science, music, mathematics, and literature? I think that the last time that any Islamic person made any significant contributions in any of these areas was through the invention of the concept of zero, and that was a long long time ago. With the small exeption of Egypt until the Muslim brotherhood took over, Muslim nations never invent or innovate anything. They don't build universities or produce anything for industry. They allow the west to pump oil from their territories which allows a majority of their population to live on welfare. Their religious police steifel free expression. The only Nobel prize ever given to an Islamic person that I know of, went to Yasser Arafat (the peace prize given to a known terrorist).

Ever heard of the Golden Age of Islam? They were light years ahead of Europe and contact with Islamic lands through the Crusades was a direct cause of the Renaissance.They contributed a lot more than zero. Look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
Here is a link. There were also causes for their decline that had nothing to do with religion. Try colonialism for starts.That explains why many Muslims arent too fond of the west. They have real grievances. You have a lot to learn.

there are great many scientists, engineers, doctors, and scientists living today from all over the world who just so happen to be Muslim.

Religious fanaticism is not unique to Islam.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there are great many scientists, engineers,
> doctors, and scientists living today from all over
> the world who just so happen to be Muslim.

And yet, according to the New York Times article you quoted elsewhere on this thread,

"Muslims are seriously underrepresented in science, accounting for fewer than 1 percent of the world's scientists while they account for almost a fifth of the world's population. Israel, he reports, has almost twice as many scientists as the Muslim countries put together."

Just like the USA, the muslim world once led the globe in scientific research. How did they lose their privileged position? Same article:

"Among other sociological and economic factors, like the lack of a middle class, Dr. Hoodbhoy attributes the malaise of Muslim science to an increasing emphasis over the last millennium on rote learning based on the Koran."

Wait... People who are so fond of their creed that they value its Holy Text higher than anything produced by science? People who take their scripture literally, and therefore stop believing in (and understanding) evolution, vaccines, antibiotics, well, science? Isn't that also reminiscent of the USA today?

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
> Here is a link.

Thank you. I read the article and several linked items. It seems to support the thesis that Islam has contributed very little to anything in terms of science, progress, etc. What is attributed to Islam, on closer inspection turns out to be assimilated from conquered civilizations. Some examples:

===============

From the intro: they basically translated works from other/previous civilizations; most scientists were actually Christians:

"During this period, the Muslims showed a strong interest in assimilating the scientific knowledge of the civilizations that had been conquered. Many classic works of antiquity that might otherwise have been lost were translated from Greek, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations into Arabic and Persian, and later in turn translated into Turkish, Hebrew, and Latin."

===============

Education: they are called universities, but are basically Islamic BYUs with an added degree in war and violence (which comes in handy when spreading Islam, I suppose):

"The University of Al Karaouine, founded in 859 AD, is arguably the world's oldest degree-granting university."

> "Al Quaraouiyine was founded with an associated school, or madrasa,in 859 by Fatima al-Fihri"

>> "In the curriculum of the madrasa, there were teachings of The Qur'an, The Hadith, fara'iz, tajweed, genealogy, treatises of first aid, etc. There were also trainings of horse-riding, art of war, handwriting and calligraphy, athletics and martial arts."

>> In another link I followed about Al-Burini, it says: "He lived during the Islamic Golden Age, in which scholarly thought went hand in hand with the thinking and methodology of the Islamic religion."

===============

Algebra: say what now? Hindu? Indian numerals? 4th century? Yeah, quoting without attributing ain't science...

"Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī played a significant role in the development of algebra, algorithms, and Hindu-Arabic numerals."

> "In the 12th century, Latin translations of his work on the Indian numerals introduced the decimal positional number system to the Western world.[5] Al-Khwārizmī's The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations in Arabic. He is often considered one of the fathers of algebra.He revised Ptolemy's Geography and wrote on astronomy and astrology."

>> "The Hindu–Arabic numeral system (also called the Arabic numeral system or Hindu numeral system) a positional decimal numeral system, is the most common system for the symbolic representation of numbers in the world. It was invented between the 1st and 4th centuries by Indian mathematicians."

>> "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (Arabic: الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة‎‎, Al-kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala; Latin: Liber Algebræ et Almucabola) is an Arabic treatise on mathematics written by Persian polymath Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī around 820 CE while he was in the Abbasid capital of Baghdad.

(...)

The book was a compilation and extension of known rules for solving quadratic equations and for some other problems, and considered to be the foundation of algebra, establishing it as an independent discipline. The word algebra is derived from the name of one of the basic operations with equations described in this book, following its Latin translation by Robert of Chester.

Since the book does not give any citations to previous authors, it is not clearly known what earlier works were used by al-Khwarizmi, and modern mathematical historians put forth opinions based on the textual analysis of the book and the overall body of knowledge of the contemporary Muslim world. There are indications of connections with Indian mathematics, as he had written a book entitled The Book of Bringing Together and Separating According to the Hindu Calculation (Kitāb al-Jamʿ wa-l-tafrīq bi-ḥisāb al-Hind), discussing the Hindu-Arabic numeral system."

===============

O, and as for blaming Islamic backwardness on colonialism:

"According to many historians, science in the Muslim civilization flourished during the Middle Ages, but began declining at some time around the 14th to 16th centuries. At least some scholars blame this on the "rise of a clerical faction which froze this same science and withered its progress." Examples of conflicts with prevailing interpretations of Islam and science – or at least the fruits of science – thereafter include the demolition of Taqi al-Din's great Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din in Galata, "comparable in its technical equipment and its specialist personnel with that of his celebrated contemporary, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe." But while Brahe's observatory "opened the way to a vast new development of astronomical science," Taqi al-Din's was demolished by a squad of Janissaries, "by order of the sultan, on the recommendation of the Chief Mufti," sometime after 1577 CE."

Nothing to do with religion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 05:06AM by rt.

When Europeans want to praise the scientific prowess of the muslim world, they quickly end up in 13th century Spain or 10th century Baghdad. Tellingly, those were not only the most advanced places of their time, but also the most secular. Religion ruined everything.

The Christians destroyed the knowledge of the ancient world, not the Muslims

The muzzies turned out just as fanatic and intolerant as the chrissies. They just peaked later.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Christians destroyed the knowledge of the
> ancient world

When and how did they do that?

Geesh.rt, Words fail



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 03:52PM by bona dea.

Muslims invented algebra. Now there is a reason to hate them. Lol. Just kidding, but math was never my forte.

Yup. Maybe algebra too and medicine

It's like tea: just because the whole of Europe uses the English name for it, doesn't mean it was invented by the English, does it?

All religions should be open to criticism, but the line is crossed when people start thinking all members are the same or that they are all evil or stupid.Many posters here are uneducated on various religions, dont know the members and stereotype members to a rediculous degree. That isnt okay.
As for Islam, recognize that Islam is diverse and all Muslims are not misogynistic,terrorists who hate the west. Criticize those who do, but leave the rest alone. Other religions get the same treatment here,particularly Catholicism. I have thought of leaving several times when the haters come out of the woodwork because I dont care to be part of such hatred.
BTW, neither Bill Maher or Sam Harris are particularly fair or even informed about Islam, but yet they are held up as the experts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2017 07:20PM by bona dea.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2017 07:16PM by anybody.

Thank you. Nice to find a few rational people here.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> BTW, neither Bill Maher or Sam Harris are
> particularly fair or even informed about Islam,
> but yet they are held up as the experts.

They are experts in debunking fraudulous claims, and religion gives them plenty of that.

Really??? Experts??? Maher is a comedian, for God's sake. Mot sure exactly what makes Harris an expert.I guess my definition is different than yours.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really??? Experts??? Maher is a comedian, for
> God's sake.

Many a true word has been said in jest...

Disliking either without cause, simply because they exist is a hate "phobia"

Disliking the LDS or certain Islamic sects for what they have done to harm gays is not a hate "phobia"

A phobia is an *irrational* fear.

Being afraid of streets (all streets, anywhere) would be a phobia.
Feeling a bit of fear or anxiety when faced with crossing a busy downtown street full of fast-moving traffic wouldn't be.

So fearing "Islam" -- or all Muslims -- for no good reason would be "Islamophobia."

Rational criticism of Islam's truth claims, or the documented actions of particular Muslims, wouldn't be.

Just like rational criticism of Mormonism's truth claims, or the documented actions of particular Mormons, wouldn't be "mormonophobia."

There was a 'flash in the pan' response to Hie that I found endearing, in that it opined that Hie might be clinically insane, because he, Hie, apparently didn't understand/comprehend that irrational violence is part and parcel of the religion of Islam.

While I am not going to comment on Hie's insanity or lack there of, I am going to take the time to point out that Violence has always been with us and will always be with us. Violence is the simplest, seemingly most effective method for "us" to keep "them" in their place. And as long as there are an "us" and a "them", there will be violence, in one form or another.

Lack of resources used to be the cause for violence: everybody needs to drink and eat. If there are limited resources, violence will be the result.

When there are sufficient resources to go around, ideas then furnish the motivation for violence. Soccer hooligans are a simple example of this. Skin color is a rich source as well. And so is religion.

The followers of one Jesus Christ have a very rich history of visiting violence on those who would not bend a knee to their ghawd. A few centuries ago an outsider looking at the situation in Europe would have considered the behavior of the different schisms of Jesus' followers to all be irrationally violent; Christianity's essence was violence!

I look forward to that day when everybody has a house on a hill, is driving a 'proud' vehicle, has money in the bank, free access to cosmetic surgery, never has to search for a parking space and stars in his/her own psychically fulfilling virtual reality show... That will be the day universal love may finally flourish.

And then no doubt the evil Zarghans will land and package us for snack food, and it will promote a war on Zargh as to which tastes better, White or Brown Hubans. (Zarghans can't make the 'm' sound...)

I would suggest, Dawg, that the relationship between ideas and resources is more complex than that.

Russia always wanted to dominate the Eurasian continent, its resources, its relatively secure borders. The Bolsheviks sought the same objectives as their predecessors (remember how far Alexander I went at the end of the Napoleonic Wars). Lenin and Stalin used a new form of social mobilization and a new ideology, and hence were more successful, but the underlying motivations were similar.

Hitler's goals were also largely economic and geopolitical. He expressly wanted to control the continent and its resources and to use those for the benefit of the German people. China? Same story. There were a couple of revolutionary movements that aimed to kick the foreigners out and reinstall an effective central government before the Communist Revolution began. What differentiated the policy of the latter regime was not its objectives but the efficiency and legitimization of its effort to achieve China's pre-existing goals.

We could multiply examples indefinitely. Saddam Hussein wanted Kuwait's oil and the ability to dominate the region. Iran is now using a nuclear program to achieve regional pre-eminence and more power over the price of its oil exports. Russia is using nationalism and anti-western sentiment, as well as intervention in US elections, to obtain the Crimea and the port facilities at Sevastapol, the resources and defensible borders of the Ukraine, and a powerful foothold in the Middle East--again partly to influence the price of oil. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to guarantee its security and to reinforce its demands for food and resources from abroad.

Yes, ideology can make a difference. But more often than not the objectives of military action today resemble those of old, with ideology not driving the wars but rather explaining and excusing them. It is also true, of course, that ancient powers used ideologies/religions to legitimize themselves and their wars in a way that was, from our perspective, quite modern.

Yes, the powers that be can use a religion, or any other ideology, as a means to an end, and that end is usually their own power. But the useful idiots who live and die for that ideology take it seriously and keep believing it long after the original ruler has died.

But your original point stands. As I always put it: The purpose of religion is to prevent democracy.

I am offended old dog by that house on a hill comment. I challenge you to a dog fight whoever can make the other person laugh first wins.

But more importantly, it's a misnomer. Hatred against people is bigotry and not ok. Criticizing an ideology and its adherents is a fundamental right and an essential component of a functioning democracy.

What "anti-islamophobes" want is to deligitimize all criticism of their religion, its sacred texts and its founders. In other words, they want blasphemy laws. A slippery slope is usually a fallacy, but here it's apt.

As Bona Dea, myself, and others have said, terrorism is not unique to Islam or any other religion. Ancient patriarchal societies are not going to adopt western democratic principles in just a few generations. Modern Islamic terrorism has much more to do with poverty, economics and the post war reaction to western colonialism than it does with religion. Religion is the ways and means and not the cause.


Much of what we know of ancient science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, etc comes from the Islamic preservation of ancient texts. Not only did they preserve this body of knowledge but they also added to it -- and our modern civilisation would not exist if it were not for this.


Some of you have fallen for the fallacy that the entire Muslim world wants to destroy the West, Islam is inherently evil, it is impossible to be a faithful Muslim without being a terrorist and every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, or some such. This is not true and contrary to fact. There are Nazi white Christian identity groups that claim their actions are justified by the Bible and they have no choice but to purge all other races to preserve their God given right to America. Would you agree with this nonsense as well just because they claim to be "white" and Christian?


People who have reasoned their way out of Mormonism shouldn't fall for the same emotional trap again.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 10:05AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Modern Islamic terrorism
> has much more to do with poverty, economics and
> the post war reaction to western colonialism than
> it does with religion.

Yet modern islamic terrorists themselves say it has everything to do with religion. And most of them are far from poor. In fact, many come from pampered backgrounds in Europe. Morocco is full of dirt-poor people who would never resort to it.

> Much of what we know of ancient science,
> mathematics, medicine, philosophy, etc comes from
> the Islamic preservation of ancient texts. Not
> only did they preserve this body of knowledge but
> they also added to it

You clearly haven't read most of the earlier posts.

> Some of you have fallen for the fallacy that the
> entire Muslim world wants to destroy the West,
> Islam is inherently evil, it is impossible to be a
> faithful Muslim without being a terrorist and
> every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, or some
> such.

If they follow the actual teachings of their creed, that would be the inevitable result though. The good muslims are those who don't follow their scriptures literally. Just like with christians.

> People who have reasoned their way out of
> Mormonism shouldn't fall for the same emotional
> trap again.

Nor should they be intimidated into self-censorship. We have a right to criticize every and any ideology. Some "anti-islamophobes" are calling for what would be, in effect, blasphemy laws. We cannot and will not let this happen.

You want people to agree that Islam = terrorism.

I won't because it is factually incorrect.

Sorry :)



This neo-Nazi group claims to be "Christian" as well
http://www.kingidentity.com/
http://www.kingidentity.com/lib.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 10:53AM by anybody.

As for the history, go read up on the collapse of the Roman empire, early medieval history, and the history of science and get back to me :0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/science/how-islam-won-and-lost-the-lead-in-science.html


Try "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas H. Kuhn -- that's a good one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 10:43AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You want people to agree that Islam = terrorism.
>

No. But I do want people to agree that islamic terrorism is islamic. Those who are peaceful need our support, but they are peaceful in spite of their faith, not because of it.

I don't know of any peaceful religion. Do you?

Theravada Buddhism come close but Buddhists aren't perfect:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/myanmars-buddhist-terrorism-problem.html


Here is a good example.

In the UK, the IRA is a terrorist group, plain and simple.

In America, the view is different. They are "bad boys" fighting for a good cause.

Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare and may or may not have a religious component.

Most Muslim scholars agree that terrorism is contrary to Islam.

If you REALLY want to know about the roots of modern "Islamic" terrorism read up on Sayyid Qutb. He is the "godfather" of the modern middle east terror movement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 11:25AM by anybody.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are muslim equivalents of BYU. But, they are mostly schools of the muslim religion, and not of any arts or sciences. They are not accredited educational institutions that would be respected anywhere outside of the muslim world. There is no scientific research going on there, and no real discoveries of significance.

With that said, there is no such thing as a muslim scholar. There are some muslims who pretend to be scholarly after finishing their studies of the koran in a muslim school. But real muslim scholars simply don't exist in real life. In very rare cases a muslim person may become educated in a Western university. Even then, those rare individuals are muslims who are also scholars, but they aren't really 'muslim scholars'. The type of scholar has to be defined by a real art or science as recognized by an accredited University, and "muslim" doesn't fit in to either category (art or science) at any accredited University degree program that I know of. Even a BYU graduate in Religious Studies must have some real arts and sciences classes (outside of religious studies) to earn a real degree involving any religion. I doubt that any credits from these middle-eastern muslim schools would be recognized at any real University that issues real degrees. So there are no real 'Muslim Scholars', only pretenders.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2017 12:43PM by azsteve.

I don't consider it a prejudice if I don't like the principles and practices of an organization, what they stand for and teach their people. But I respect a person's right to choose one of those organizations, even if I can't relate to their choice.

I'm certainly not going to like or respect a person who chooses to harm other people. Is that a prejudice against people who choose to harm other people? I don't know.

There are Mormons who harm and there are Muslims who harm. But most Mormons and most Muslims are just like the majority of us - just trying to live their lives in peace.

I guess I personally define prejudice as being prejudiced against an entire group of people, including the good along with the poor examples of that group, just because of their association with that group, their skin colour, or their nationality, etc.

But what about the members of a group who are on a fringe? I am not prejudiced. But when someone from one of these groups starts spewing some crap idealogy that I oppose, I stand back and think "oh, he (or she as the case may be) is one of those people" (the ones that really should be discriminated against). They often categorize themselves. Is it fair to discriminate against them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2017 12:55PM by azsteve.

There seem to be three conversations going on here, not surprising but all the same.

First, there is a segment of people who are afraid of Islam. Justifiably or not the actions of some have poisoned the whole religion for this segment.

Second, there seems to be an idea that past behavior excuses current behavior.

Third, that justifiable concerns exist.


On the first point. I would argue without evidence that the same person who hates any person for wanting to live their life also fears the Moslim. Simply as a point of reference which allows us to see why somebody like Anybody would react so viscerally to to their irrational fears. It makes no sense at all to fear and every person based on some difference or perceived threat. And yet that is how many people are treated. From the Moslim, gay person, transgendered, handicapped, black person, and so forth. I find it hard to imagine that there are many on this board who buys into this sort of behavior. It is simply wrong.

On the second point. I'm just not sure this belongs in the discussion. Beyond something 800 years ago having little impact on the culture of the region today. It is also debatable that Islam had anything to do with it's own golden age. Beyond the fact that Muhammad unified most of the region via war I would argue that it was the political structure created by the Baghdad Caliphate that enabled the environment that started and fed the golden age. In fact with the Sack of Baghdad and the crumbling of the Caliphate the religion continued but the golden age did not. One final point on this is that even during the golden age there was little in the way of basic human rights for well over half of the population. That is the same in most of this world during this time but prior to Muhammad's wars and the consolidation of power in Baghdad women in that region were accustomed to more rights.

The third point is where I think many get lost. The enormity of the human rights issues in the Moslim world and the extremism in Islamic terrorists are both very frightening. Mormonism is awful to be sure but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. So while Mormons and their far right evangelical cousins are prone to have hurtful beliefs and on occasion do hurtful things they are neither overtly supported by their countries or widely lauded by the general population where they operate. Islamic terrorism is cultivated by the lack of human rights and the extreme adherence to religious law. They are lauded by leaders in the Muslim region as religious people and martyrs. State sponsored and cultivated terrorism is a real and terrifying prospect.

So to sum up, Islamophobia is terrible. As is Mormonphobia. Why would it be ok to hate or fear someone for being something that you don't understand? We are all better than that. But don't give me that platitude as a catch all to excuse the real and present issues that Islam and Mormonism present to each of us both individually and in our society.

When any group puts itself "out there" it invites comment and
criticism. You'll notice that lots of people express strong
opinions about Islam and about Mormonism. But I never hear
anyone complaining about the Amish. It's really very simple, if
you don't want public criticism, just keep to yourself.

Mormons don't kill people and burn b
Down buildings because somebody blasphemes Joseph Smith or the BoM.
Imagine for a moment what reaction the South Park boys would have received had they staged "The Koran" on Broadway. If you believe Muslims would have reacted the same way as Mormons reacted, by taking out a 2 page add in the Playbook, you are either a liar or delusional.
I think I am the only ExMo ExMuslim I've ever heard of.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 01:44PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I am the only ExMo ExMuslim I've ever heard of.


I know someone who was born Muslim, converted to Mormonism, but then went back to being Muslim when his life went sideways and he decided he was being punished for leaving Islam.

Remember the Mormon persecution complex? Evangelicals and white nationalists have adopted the same kind of "everybody is out to get us" type thinking as well.

The same is true of terrorism.

The more you agitate for a "crusade" against Islam, think all Muslims are potential terrorists, etc the more terrorists you recruit. Hate and racism only feeds resentment and that helps the terrorists.

I don't want to get into the complex politics about how terrorists are funded and supported (and it's very complex--more so than you think and there are lots of agendas by many different players) but terrorism can't succeed without fear and hate.

If you give people a reason to fear and hate.

The whole issue boils down to one word "soverignty". To make the point (and not changing the topic here), in Mexico it is the Cartels and not the Mexican government who are soverign. The government has a 'no execution' policy. The Cartels have sovereignty over life and death. If they deem that you should be killed, then someone will simply be assigned to kill you. Without exercising a similar willingness, the government can't even begin to compete for control within their horders.

In mormonism, in the mid-1850's in Utah, the mormon church had sovereignty over the lives of everyone who lived there. The older temple ceremonies are proof that the mormon people of that time were routinely and ritualistically reminded of that their governor who was also their prophet, could have them killed if necessary. He even preached of this right to kill people who had committed sins, from the pulpit. And who deemed a person worthy of being killed for their sins? of course, the church.

What scares the hell out of me about Islam is that these people all belong to a religion that claims sovereignty over the lives of others who they believe, have a duty to live according to religious laws. When a foreign, Islamic man in Mesa Arizona intentionally runs over his daughter with the family car as an 'honor killing', he believed that he had a moral right to do what he did. A crowd stoning an adultress to death is considered normal and acceptable in Islamic societies. Many times, a trial is not even necessary and the government is not even involved in the public killing of someone. That is because the religion and not the government, has the sovereignty over human life there. If you do something to criticize their religion, they can send someone out to kill you. This is all considered to be completely normal and acceptable in the society that some of these people grew up in. To them, every intuition tells them that it is us Americans and not them that have corrupt moral values. They ban together in their social groups to support eachother in their beliefs. And most significant among those beliefs is that only Allah and those who follow him, really have sovereignty over human life.

So, here is what I think is a fair deal for all Muslims in the US. They really and truely accept that only the state they live in, and at times, the federal government has exclusive and final sovereignty over human life within the boredrs of their respective jurisdictions. These muslims must also tolerate any reasonable ("reasonable" as defined by American norms) freedom of expression from others, about their religion that others may have. In exchange, these muslims should be allowed to practice their religion here to the degree that they obey state and local and federal laws. This sounds like a good solution. To the degree that this bargain is not put in place and/or is not honored, we should use any means necessary to assert the right of governments to have exclusive sovereignty over human life within their territories in a free and domocratic society. Hopefully, that means 'no violence'. On the other hand, when a man runs his own daughter over as an honor killing, that's not just a crime. It's a hate crime that should be followed closely by the media to conclusion, and that should result in a publicly well-known execution. He who actually has sovereignty over life and death in a society, that person is in control. Whether or not we should tolerate mass uncontrolled immigration is the next question to ask.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 03:48PM by azsteve.

Just because one group was falsely accused, doesn't mean you can never criticize anyone else again, does it?

I remember the aforementioned incident. There have been other instances of so called "honour killing" by people from other parts of the world now living in western countries -- including sub-Saharan Africa, south-east Asia and India.

In the not so recent past all manner of plots, crimes, and conspiracies were attributed to Jews and Catholics including human blood sacrifice. It was also said that a Catholic was only loyal to the Pope and not any secular law or government. Mitt Romney faced the same sort of criticism for being a Mormon that JFK did during his presidential campaign.

Many conspiracy theorists in the US, UK, and Europe are "convinced" there is a plot to make Western governments adhere to Muslim Sharia law, etc. This is nonsense and is used as a pretext to pass legislation to either bar or expel Muslims or both.

Individuals commit crimes, not religions. Just as in our society people have a desire to do things then go out and look for religious justification for something they would do anyway. I'm especially thinking of FGM and it's the matrons who insist upon it for girls -- not always the men.


Sorry, but I'n never going to go along with judging people because they belong to a group or religion or ethnicity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2017 08:48AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In the not so recent past all manner of plots,
> crimes, and conspiracies were attributed to Jews
> and Catholics including human blood sacrifice.

The honour killings that azsteve mentioned weren't ficticious plots and conspiracies. They were real crimes with real victims.

> Individuals commit crimes, not religions.

But individuals do commit crimes for religious reasons, and we have the right to criticize the religions along with the individuals.

> Sorry, but I'n never going to go along with
> judging people because they belong to a group or
> religion or ethnicity.

Good, neither are we. But we shouldn't give anyone a free pass because of their religion either. And least of all should the religion itself get a free pass.

... Keep in mind that the muslim world is as vast and diverse as the christian world. We rarely lump Uganda, Bolivia and the Philippines together with New Zealand, Mexico and Poland, do we? Well the same applies here.

I live in Morocco most of the time, which is a very tolerant and open-minded society even though islam is top dog. Laws here protect minorities, there's always a few jews and christians in the government, and a grand avenue in my town was named after an openly gay French fashion designer who had his holiday home there. Tunisia is even more liberal, and Turkey is, on paper, the most secular of all, thought now being undermined by an islamist who wants to keep evolution out of schools and smuggle creationism in.

But everything you say is true about other, less westernized and less civilized nations like Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen. That is something Americans have to understand. Foreigners from those countries are like christians from Uganda or Guyana. You cannot expect them to understand the concepts of equality and democracy as well as christians from Australia or Mexico. If your Iranian refugees are a model minority, your Afghans may not be so nice. You see, these differences in levels of development can be stark even between nations that share a border: Senegal is very moderate, they abolished the death penalty long time ago. But the Gambia, an enclave within Senegal, degenerated into an islamic theocracy under the sociopathic dictator they just ousted.

I am saying this because your fair deal to American muslims makes sense, but a lot of American muslims would be offended if you hold them to the same low standards as some tribe on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But by the same token, such tribal immigrants would be traumatized if you expect them to be fully westernized from day one.

Which is why the term "muslim world" is never used in the muslim world, except by fundamentalist dreamers who want to dominate the world. Just like we never talk about the "christian world".

Maybe we should put a hold on immigration from some of these more dangerous countries that you describe (where the people would be "traumatized if you expected them to be fully westernized from day one") until we can "figure out what the hell is going on". Gees, we've heard that before and those who wanted this common sense approach were labeled as 'deplorables', and sumarily dismissed as racists. All US courts except the Supreme court (so far) seem to support letting these traumatized people enter and run free in our society. Is it any wonder that we distrust the left and want to put a stop to this insanity?

It's personal for me. I think the Koran is a non kosher Bible, and the BoM is an American Bible. Both books are assigned qualities they simply don't have by believers. There is no magic in the reading of these books, except the magic the reader imagines in his head. Mormonism and me, we've got a long running beef.It's personal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2017 06:28PM by donbagley.

Both are supremacist cults. It's only a phobia if it's an irrational fear.

I have never heard of the term mormonophobia but maybe i have it, i do fear them.

The word "islamophobia" should be abolished, because it is always used to mean something else.

Antisemites hate jews as a people and that is wrong. Just like hating muslims as a people is wrong. It is bigotry. But calling this "islamophobia" is also wrong. Islam is not a people, it's an ideology, and ideologies are free to be criticized, or even loathed.

Few of my fellow leftists would probably use the term if they knew who coined the term. The ayatollah Khomeini. And he used it in the right meaning: a profound hatred towards his totalitarian ideology that chained women, executed jews and locked up gays. Islamophobic? Count me in. For islamophobia is just a form of fascistophobia.

"Islam is not a people, it's an ideology, and ideologies are free to be criticized, or even loathed"

The first reply to the OP turned it from a conversation about Islam to conversation about Islamic culture. From there there question never got answered.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The defenders of Islam point out the any comment about Islam is a generalization and therefore not universally true and therefore false. But, if this is your standard, you can't really say anything about Islam since there's always an exception.

So I guess I will just ask the defenders, which Islamic country would you like to lead a group of male Gay tourists in a rainbow colored tour bus through the local sites?

I pity you.

Most of you were once Mormons. What did you think when you heard that "all" Mormons were "like" X, Y, or Z?

If you want to criticise a religion, do so based on its theology.

If you want to criticise a society, do so its based on rules and laws.

Why do you keep saying "all"?

Is it OK to discuss the effect of the religion as a community? Or can we only criticize the theology?

Why do Mormons go on missions? Is the religion influencing the action?

(I didn't say all Mormons go on missions.)

Not if said religion injures innocent people.

Four Americans just had acid thrown at them in Marseilles, France.
The two girls were hit in the face with the acid, yet papers "aren't sure it was a terrorist attack". WTF?

There was a terrorist attack in London this week, yet papers downplay the situation. WTF ?

We can be grateful that the U.S. is clamping down on who they let in.
That's showing some common sense while EU seems to have lost its collective mind.

Elyse - from one so-called 'deplorable' to another, I agree. Angela Merkel is currently doubbling-down, saying that she did the right thing, even in retrospect, when it comes to immigration in her country. All I can say is "it sucks to be them now". If current trends of change prevail here in the US for the next 7+ years, maybe we can all be spared the same fate.

You seem to think that to criticize a religion is to discriminate against each and every one of its adherents. It's not. And ethnicity doesn't even come into play. There is no such thing as a muslim race. In my country most muslims are white and most christians are black. You are accusing us of racism without any evidence. Shame on you.

Remember these children: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/02/afghanistans-all-girl-robotics-team-wont-be-allowed-to-come-the-u-s/

Muslim, female, children. A the whinging about Islam/science/theydonothing made me think about these girls who have been lucky enough to be allowed to go to school, who have an interest in science, who we shut down and only allowed to come after internal and international pushback.

Art. Remember this guy? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/movies/trump-immigration-oscars-iranian-director-asghar-farhadi.html?mcubz=0&_r=0

And these people? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/movies/visa-ban-leaves-artists-in-limbo-and-institutions-perplexed.html?action=click&contentCollection=Movies&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

And just, ugh.

People have made much better contributions to this discussion than I have or will, but it galls me to read "%#$^#^theyterkourjobzmuslim$%$##^# don't contribute to [insert lie here]."

SMGDH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2017 02:28PM by Beth.

...It's about the creed that takes them hostage.

I'm all for letting all those people in, just like everyone on this thread. By I'm not for giving the religion that oppresses them as women or liberals a free pass. In fact, I don't think they would support that religion wholeheartedly if it were safe for them to apostatize openly.

There are a lot of good points in this thread.

Of course all people in a religion are not the same. All Mormons are not the same, yet here we are on a board discussing the problems with it. If we dare to do that about other religions here, we are called "phobes" by religious defenders. I don't disagree with many of their points.

There is one sticking point or me. The people of a religion who wink and nod at the parts they decide not to follow are still giving legitimacy to the religion and the entire holy writ as written. If we stay in Mormonism, it empowers and emboldens it because we are supporters of the religion, even if we cherry pick all the ridiculousness out. This is why many of us view leaving instead of staying in cherry picking everything: you have to leave to stop empowering the fanatics who are actually just as legitimate their interpretation as anyone else.

I left Mormonism and by doing so I am NOT giving any legitimacy to the religion or the ones who happen to take it seriously and actually practice what they read from prophets and scriptures.

I have no issues with people from Islam. There are now many who are atheists. These are the ones who have my respect. They have openly repudiated the Koran and recognize by not doing so, they are implicitly empowering the fanatics.

I asked a very nice and liberal thinking Muslim woman her thoughts about the passages in the Koran that are used to validate intolerance and violence. I asked her if she agreed with those passages and would repudiate them. She became very uncomfortable and said the Koran's recitations are revelations from God, so no, she will not repudiate them. She supports them by default. I asked her why she thinks the others who act on the verses are wrong and she had no reasonable answer, just like Christians who gripe about other Christians taking the wrong verses literally. We talked about how Thomas Jefferson removed parts of the Bible that he felt were nonsense and by doing so, made his stand. She skirted and made it clear that the unspoken rule is to support the Holy Writ as written but cherry pick and pretend the people who cherry pick differently are somehow not correctly following the religion.

I completely respect the ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, ex-Mormons, ex-Christians, etc. who have made the stand not to support the fuel of the extremists and fanatics by repudiating it fully.