Ah yes, the ever-recurring posts wherein our resident experts on Islam, both as a religion and as a culture, more than a millennia old, fall over each other to demonstrate their heart-felt, intellectual prowess.

And of course, said experts will observe the necessary distinction between Islam and muslims, ideas and people, societies and individuals.


The catholicism of the Pope’s Swiss Guard is different from the anglo-catholicism of WH Auden (which is different from John Henry Newman’s anglo-catholicism); which is different from the catholicism of converts like the Lutheran Knute Rockne and the Jew Gustav Mahler; which is different from the catholicism in the Congo (which is different from the catholicism in the Philippines, Mexico and Brazil); which of course differs from the catholicism of the put-upon coffee picker in Guatemala (which differs from the catholicism of Bishop Timothy Dolan in New York). And this is true (and the scale can be drawn even wider and more varied) at the same time that all these people, if alive at the same time, could partake of the same Mass in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on any given Sunday (not to mention the many differing catholicisms of the ‘lapsed’ who are watching Sunday afternoon football, instead).

The same is true with Islam among muslims.

My Nigerian co-worker, with tribe-scared cheeks, and my Sunni barber, with the beautiful and rebellious daughter, have different experiences as muslims and have different ideas about Islam. So does my family doctor, of Persian descent. My childhood friend, whose parents came from Syria and ran a family bakery in the neighbourhood, has different ideas about Islam than my Saudi acquaintance, an accountant, who came to Canada to escape the stifling atmosphere of privilege and wealth (growing up with servants to screw back on your milk-bottle cap has its drawbacks, he jokes). And their experiences as muslims are different. And of course these differences are not lost on my better half’s friend and co-worker, an Indian who grew up in Africa and follows, as many in Calgary do, the Aga Khan. Our Mayor, also an Ismaili, certainly differs from her on what Islam is and means, as she likes to points out. And on and on and on…


Recovery from Mormonism, for me, is partly about noticing that the same is also true even in Mormonism, as small as the community is. Nightingale’s experience of conversion mormonism, for example, differs from Elder Berry’s pioneer stock mormonism. The jack-mormon experiences a different LDSinc than does one of the Romney clan. A prophet’s grandson experiences a different mormonism than the Peruvians that were baptized last week. And so on.

There are mormons and then there is LDSinc. There are catholics and then there is Catholicism. There are muslims and then there is Islam.

And we are all,

Human

X is X means nothing. We're not all the same and thank God. We're not the Borg or a beehive.

I have spent plenty of time among cultures other than my own. There are commonalities - we mostly have arms and legs and intelligence - but we are not the same.

You speak as if these differences are a device of the devil, whereas they are engines of change. When everywhere becomes the same, progress will slow. We are already seeing cultural stagnation not diversification. Globalization may pretend to favor "diversity" (a political word nowadays) but the net result is homogeneity - same clothes, same music, same restaurants, even the same language in many cases, with minor adjustments for climate.

This isn't progressing, making us all the same or pretending that. I don't want to live somewhere which could be anywhere. I prefer character.

You could exchange many of the newer towns in the western world with each other and no one would notice much change - the Vancouver suburbs with those of Stockholm, those of Auckland with those of Hobart in Tasmania, and Hobart with newer developments in Maine. They can pretend all they like - it ain't diverse in any real sense.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They can pretend all they
> like - it ain't diverse in any real sense.

People are diverse. That seems to me a valid point without any political asides.

Growing up Mormon, as a small child I realized that non-Mormons were similar to Mormons. I was confused why I was being taught I was superior to them and other Mormons not endowed with my pedigree.

Us and Them thinking is human nature in my opinion. Your "conspiracy" of homogeny is a boogeyman to me. You seem tormented by lots of such demons in your thinking.

Diversity is wonderful in our shared humanity. The details are wonderful. That is what I took from this thread. We are all human but humanity is very diverse.

There is a paradox. People are not the same. I am different from my neighbors - they have different social dynamics, opinions, sporting preferences and so on.

But here's the paradox. We are all quite different, but while we are being told how different we all are, our world is turning into a sea of indistinguishable mush.

It's not a conspiracy at all, it's happenning quite openly. It is a historical process much like most of the Americas (south of the USA) becoming largely Spanish speaking. Just on a global scale. Globalizarion in the past fifty or so years has leveled difference at an alarming rate. At least at a superficial level.

The LDS is an example of this pheonomenon. Missionaries dress the same, look the same while preaching a goapel of individuality that has taken theirs.

People do lash out against this deliberate homogenization - trying to form subcultures and the like, because inside they feel different in a world where one street brgins ro look like another...

I suspect we sre ending up like a supermarket - rows and rows of barely distinguishable products, all coming from different factories with different labels, but tasting much the same.

I haven't expressed this very well, maybe I'll make another attempt later.

You take Human's post, misrepresent it, and then go off on your own rant.


--------------
> X is X means nothing. We're not all the same and
> thank God. We're not the Borg or a beehive.

Either you didn't read what Human wrote or you did not understand it.


----------------------------
> I have spent plenty of time among cultures other
> than my own. There are commonalities - we mostly
> have arms and legs and intelligence - but we are
> not the same.

Your second sentence contradicts the first. Either that or you encountered those other cultures in ways that prevented you from seeing meaningful differences--like when various customers present themselves to you at the counter in the convenience store where you work from 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM, Calgary time, several nights a week.


----------------
> You speak as if these differences are a device of
> the devil,

Nowhere did Human say anything remotely resembling that.


--------------
> whereas they are engines of change.
> When everywhere becomes the same, progress will
> slow. We are already seeing cultural stagnation
> not diversification. Globalization may pretend to
> favor "diversity" (a political word nowadays) but
> the net result is homogeneity - same clothes, same
> music, same restaurants, even the same language in
> many cases, with minor adjustments for climate.
>
> This isn't progressing, making us all the same or
> pretending that. I don't want to live somewhere
> which could be anywhere. I prefer character.
>
> You could exchange many of the newer towns in the
> western world with each other and no one would
> notice much change - the Vancouver suburbs with
> those of Stockholm, those of Auckland with those
> of Hobart in Tasmania, and Hobart with newer
> developments in Maine. They can pretend all they
> like - it ain't diverse in any real sense.

All of that is completely unrelated to what Human wrote. If you want to rant about diversity versus homogeneity, you should start your own thread instead of hijacking this to rant about your idee fixe.

What makes people people is their difference, not a hive mentality which is what this post seems to suggest. We are not automata off a production line.

If you're LDS, especially a man, you're expected to dress alike, think alike, speak alike. Difference is what makes you you, not similarity.

I'm glad we are different, but I find it bizarre that those who go on most about diversity are those who in practise oppose it, or support processes which paradoxically eliminate the real thing in the long run.

Hold on now.....I heard Soilent Green was people. Which is it?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 05:12AM by Soft Machine.

The Stainless Steel Rat was a guiding light!

So was Keith Laumar's Jame Retief!!

I don't think there was much disagreement with individuals incorporating their experience, views and religion in their diverse ways.

For me, the issue is the empowerment they give to the dogma that unfortunately some people actually take seriously. That can impact the rest of us.

Catholics are great people, but their religion has demonstrated power to influence women's rights (just one example). Many individual Catholics don't seem to be concerned how or if their religion maintains power. As has been discussed before, they value the culture, traditions, etc. as part of their identity.

Muslims are great people, but their religion has written violent instructions that some sincere believers do take seriously.

How do we get these diverse people to stop passively enabling the dogma of the religion? They don't think they are enabling, but by identifying with the religion, that enables the religion's power and influence. I don't know the answer to how we can get the abhorrent teachings universally ignored. I suppose all we can do is wait for the religion and how it is interpreted to change over time.

There is no rhyme or reason for how individuals will justify believing their holy writs are divine while selecting what parts are important to them in their lives. This is just as true for Mormons as others. People are people!

I agree it is an important distinction to make between the people and the religion, but at some point, is there any responsibility for silently supporting the religion's harmful dogma and attempts to impose it on others? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Religion is a choice. It is optional. To belong is to empower all aspects of the religion, even the parts you don't follow.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion is a choice. It is optional. To belong is
> to empower all aspects of the religion, even the
> parts you don't follow.

Sometimes when it isn't optional it feels like living in a family you don't agree with and feeling like an outsider.

Their religion is a vehicle for a sense of continuity with everyone. Their religion's distasteful aspects are downplayed in the community it creates.

I was mostly a prodigal, black sheep, outsider often pretending to belong to their fold.

There are a lot of babies in their baptismal waters.

True. I understand. I also pretended for a long time.

I gave up my cultural links by walking away from the Mormon Church. It was my identity, rituals, social glue, etc. It was costly. We all have to weigh supporting the organization/culture against not belonging.

I think many people, if they are OK with faith-based thinking overall, might value community and emotional fuzzies more than people like me who walk away. I do not want any part of enabling the Mormons to maintain any power or influence.

At some point, I suppose people decide what level of hypocrisy they can live with as they cherry pick away. We've all done it.

"Catholics are great people...Muslims are great people"

Break this down. Would you say the same about Mormons? Maybe.

The obvious truth here is that there are plenty of both groups who fall into the indifferent or bad categories.

RC societies have produced the Mafia and the IRA who are mass murderers. Both organizations have an ambivalent relationship with Roman Catholicism - some priests work with them, but officially RCs aren't supposed to be involved. However, their milieu is Catholic.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> RC societies have produced the Mafia and the IRA
> who are mass murderers. Both organizations have an
> ambivalent relationship with Roman Catholicism -
> some priests work with them, but officially RCs
> aren't supposed to be involved. However, their
> milieu is Catholic.


Very true. And the same goes for mormons killing others at Mountain Meadows, buddhists burning muslims alive and muslims who join IS. All of these environments are a part and a product of these respective religions, no matter how much the moderates may tell themselves that these guys are no true Scotsmen...

Thank you, Human.

"Ah yes, the ever-recurring posts wherein our resident experts on Islam, both as a religion and as a culture, more than a millennia old, fall over each other to demonstrate their heart-felt, intellectual prowess."

COMMENT: I am not sure who this is directed to, but I can guess. In any event, I don't recall anyone here claiming to be an "expert" on Islam, either as a religion or culture, much less anyone that appeared motivated to express anything other then there own views based upon limited knowledge and understanding. Now, that said, are YOU claiming to be an expert? If so, then please educate us by showing how the core doctrines of Islam, as traditionally taught and articulated by Mohammad, or in the Quran, or elsewhere, are inclusive, loving, and egalitarian. And then explain, please, how someone might take such innocuous doctrines and interpret them as exclusionary and jihadist. I personally would much appreciate such enlightenment.
_________________________________________

And of course, said experts will observe the necessary distinction between Islam and muslims, ideas and people, societies and individuals.

COMMENT: Of course. So, is this comment supposed to be just sarcasm? If so, again, set us straight.
__________________________________________

The catholicism of the Pope’s Swiss Guard is different from the anglo-catholicism of WH Auden (which is different from John Henry Newman’s anglo-catholicism); which is different from the catholicism of converts like the Lutheran Knute Rockne and the Jew Gustav Mahler; which is different from the catholicism in the Congo (which is different from the catholicism in the Philippines, Mexico and Brazil); which of course differs from the catholicism of the put-upon coffee picker in Guatemala (which differs from the catholicism of Bishop Timothy Dolan in New York). And this is true (and the scale can be drawn even wider and more varied) at the same time that all these people, if alive at the same time, could partake of the same Mass in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on any given Sunday (not to mention the many differing catholicisms of the ‘lapsed’ who are watching Sunday afternoon football, instead).

COMMENT: O.K. there are different versions of Catholicism. But, what you fail to note are the *commonalities.* It is the commonalities of religious traditions that are the focal point of criticism of Islam. So, what do all versions of Catholicism have in common. Well, I am not an expert, but presumably they all subscribe to Papal authority, and the doctrinal dictates of the Papacy. Isn't that a necessary condition for being identified a "Catholic" however one might deviate in the details?
______________________________________

The same is true with Islam among muslims.

COMMENT: No doubt. In fact, I would assume that each and every individual Muslim can in some sense be considered his or her "own brand" of the religion. But, I ask, what might be true about the mindset of all such persons simply by choosing to be identified as a Muslim? What do they all have in common? You tell me. As a layperson, I assume that it involves some commitment to the prophetic calling of Mohammad; and some commitment to the Quran. And, some idea of what Jihad means and how it is to be understood in Islam. So, again, where in all of these "innocent" versions is there a real *doctrinal* disconnect with the Islamic terrorism we see on TV; and where can we find these people insisting upon such distinctions? I don't see them. But, again, please educate me.
________________________________________

My Nigerian co-worker, with tribe-scared cheeks, and my Sunni barber, with the beautiful and rebellious daughter, have different experiences as muslims and have different ideas about Islam. So does my family doctor, of Persian descent. My childhood friend, whose parents came from Syria and ran a family bakery in the neighbourhood, has different ideas about Islam than my Saudi acquaintance, an accountant, who came to Canada to escape the stifling atmosphere of privilege and wealth (growing up with servants to screw back on your milk-bottle cap has its drawbacks, he jokes). And their experiences as muslims are different. And of course these differences are not lost on my better half’s friend and co-worker, an Indian who grew up in Africa and follows, as many in Calgary do, the Aga Khan. Our Mayor, also an Ismaili, certainly differs from her on what Islam is and means, as she likes to points out. And on and on and on.

COMMENT: That is all well and good. There are differences. There are kind and loving Muslims. We can all agree on that. But, at bottom what do they believe? What *is* their commitment to Islam? When does that commitment end and their charitable nature begin?
________________________________________

Recovery from Mormonism, for me, is partly about noticing that the same is also true even in Mormonism, as small as the community is. Nightingale’s experience of conversion mormonism, for example, differs from Elder Berry’s pioneer stock mormonism. The jack-mormon experiences a different LDSinc than does one of the Romney clan. A prophet’s grandson experiences a different mormonism than the Peruvians that were baptized last week. And so on.

COMMENT: Again, we can agree. People are different; Catholics are not all the same; Muslims are not all the same; Mormons are not all the same; (ExMormons are not all the same). BUT, THERE IS A CONSTANCY IN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IDENTIFY WITH. There are such things as core religious doctrines; foundational tenets of faith, that unite such adherents. These can be identified, evaluated and adjudged independently of the mindset of the believers. And, like it or not, when someone affiliates with a religious tradition they buy into such traditions, for better or worse. And to that extent they own it. That alone--in my view--entails individual moral responsibility.
___________________________________

There are mormons and then there is LDSinc. There are catholics and then there is Catholicism. There are muslims and then there is Islam.

COMMENT: Yes, and when someone chooses to identify as Mormon, Catholic, or Muslim, they inherit and take on all that these traditions stand for.

> COMMENT: Yes, and when someone chooses to identify
> as Mormon, Catholic, or Muslim, they inherit and
> take on all that these traditions stand for.

Henry, that is not true. No one takes on "all" that any of these traditions stand for. Catholics do not "own" the Crusades, Mormons don't "take on" Mountain Meadows or the practice of polygamy, and Muslims don't embrace terrorism.

Everyone in every religion is a cafeteria believer. Human's point about the diversity of human experience within a tradition or a religion is correct.

Henry, that is not true. No one takes on "all" that any of these traditions stand for. Catholics do not "own" the Crusades, Mormons don't "take on" Mountain Meadows or the practice of polygamy, and Muslims don't embrace terrorism.

COMMENT: What a religion "stands for" does not, in my view, include historical excesses, or isolated anomalous behavior born of misplaced or distorted enthusiasm. But it *does* include core traditional and fundamental doctrines! As such, Mormons "take on" the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, and priesthood authority generally; they "take on" the historicity of the Book of Mormon; they "take on" the idea of Mormonism as the one "true" Church; and yes, they "take on" polygamy, which was taught as a core doctrine and has not be renounced or denied as such. And they "take on" all that these core doctrines imply.

Islam's tradition--at its core--embraces exclusivity and jihad by more or less forcible means and methods. That is what Mohammad stood for, personally practiced, and fundamentally embraced! That is core! That is what the Quran teaches. So, a Muslim can dismiss this, and distance herself from it; and even condemn it. But, as long as they embrace Mohammad as *the* prophet, and the Quran as the defining message of God through his prophet, they "take on" the baggage associated with such doctrines, like it or not.
_______________________________________

Everyone in every religion is a cafeteria believer. Human's point about the diversity of human experience within a tradition or a religion is correct.

COMMENT: Hogwash. (That is a technical term!) If that were the case, there would be no point in *any* religious identifications. How people label themselves says something about them; about who they are; about what core traditions they believe in. And when those traditions dictate or encourage beliefs and behavior that is morally objectionable, ALL adherents retain some level of responsibility.

Thus, if I am a friend of someone I know molests young teen-aged girls, but I choose to remain silent because, after all, I value his friendship, and anyway each to his own, am I not morally blameworthy in some sense?

It is really just the same principle. There is a point when who or what we associate with matters.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thus, if I am a friend of someone I know molests
> young teen-aged girls, but I choose to remain
> silent because, after all, I value his friendship,
> and anyway each to his own, am I not morally
> blameworthy in some sense?

This is a bad analogy in my opinion and my tipping point was Joe's sexual predation.

My little family knows Joe was a sexual predator. Does this mean they tacitly or otherwise condone such behavior? No. Does Abrahamic stories condone familial murder? No.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2019 04:29PM by Elder Berry.

"This is a bad analogy in my opinion and my tipping point was Joe's sexual predation."

COMMENT: I assume you mean your final motivation for leaving Mormonism was "Joe's sexual predation." So, once you understood that, and could no longer justify it theologically, you presumably felt morally obligated to distance yourself from Mormonism and Joe. If so, how is my analogy bad?
____________________________________

My little family knows Joe was a sexual predator. Does this mean they tacitly or otherwise condone such behavior? No. Does Abrahamic stories condone familial murder? No.

COMMENT: I don't know who "your little family" is, so let's just talk about you. If you know Joe was a sexual predator in every sense of those words, and yet you continued to revere him as a prophet and "spokesman" for God, and proclaim him as such, directly or indirectly, and by implication a man of character, notwithstanding such behavior, that would be a form of condonation in my view.

As for Abraham, let's assume that you were a follower of Abraham at the time, and that he successfully killed his son for the reasons given; i.e. God told him to. You are justifiably outraged. But you like Abraham. After all, he is a good person, otherwise, and very sincere in his delusions. So, you decide you will continue to follow him. It is just easier that way, because you have made a commitment to him and you and your family are deeply entrenched in Abrahamism.

Now, in such a case you may not be condoning familial murder per se, but you *are* in some sense condoning *that* murder. You are looking the other way, when you know that his conduct was wrong.

Suppose you were a follower of Jim Jones, and instead of dying in Guyana, you and Jim managed to escape into the wilderness, leaving everyone else dead at Jim's instigation, although you personally had nothing to do with the murders. Now you are very upset with what he did. You think it was murder. But, you say to yourself, "what the heck, he is a pretty good guy otherwise, and did much good, and had some great ideas; why not continue allegiance." Thereafter, with your help, Jim starts a new Church with the same beliefs, policies and practices, and ultimately the same result. But *you* didn't *do* anything wrong. You just went along for the ride. Are you morally blameworthy or innocent?

Moral: What you come to know in life; and what you do with that knowledge; and who and what you associate with after gaining such knowledge, is morally relevant.

"People all over the world (everybody)
Join hands (join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (all the world, now)
Join hands (love ride)
Start a love train (love ride), love train
The next stop that we make will be soon
Tell all the folks in Russia, and China, too
Don't you know that it's time to get on board
And let this train keep on riding, riding on through
Well, well
People all over the world (you don't need no money)
Join hands (come on)
Start a love train, love train (don't need no ticket, come on)
People all over the world (Join in, ride this train)
Join in (Ride this train, y'all)
Start a love train (Come on, train), love train
All of you brothers over in Africa
Tell all the folks in Egypt, and Israel, too"

Seriously folks.

Thanks to Human for injecting some sense into the debate and thanks to the mods for cutting the last thread short.The Islamophobia of some posters is disturbing

Right. "Islamophobia" applies to all those who dare criticize Islam or Muslims.

But there is no such thing as Caltholicophobia; there is no Jehovah's Witnessophobia; and most importantly no Mormonophobia. Trash these groups and their adherents all you want! But Islam? Hands-off!

Some one needs to explain to me just what it is about Islam that is so special and distinctive to warrant this "hands-off" policy--unless one wants to be labeled Islamophobic. Really, what is the psychology of such an attitude? Why is it that I can accept my Mormon neighbors with kindness, while criticizing their religion, but I cannot accept my Muslim neighbors with kindness while criticizing their religion.

What would you say to an internet Board that called itself "Recovery from Islam?" Presumably, you would think it a bastion of Islamophobics. And what about courageous ex-Muslims (you know, like ExMormons) who speak out. I suppose they are just part of an anti-Muslim conspiracy.

If you (and Human) cannot answer these question; or otherwise substantively address my points and those of others here, your rhetoric and name-calling is meaningless.

In short, what is wrong with a principle of kindness and tolerance to individuals, while allowing justified criticisms of what they believe; and suggesting that what they (and all of us) believe carries with it moral responsibility. I apply this to myself on a daily basis! That is what it means to have humanist values. (Oh Oh; I think I might be anti-Humanistophobic.)

> Right. "Islamophobia" applies to all those who
> dare criticize Islam or Muslims.

It doesn't. I despise parts of Islam--you can call it Islamophobia if you want. I simply differentiate between those versions of Islam and the better, sometimes much better, versions. Above you said that converts to Islam accept "all" of the tradition. It is only when you lump everyone together like that that Islamophobia is born.


---------------
> But there is no such thing as Caltholicophobia;
> there is no Jehovah's Witnessophobia; and most
> importantly no Mormonophobia. Trash these groups
> and their adherents all you want! But Islam?
> Hands-off!

I trash the Catholic church and its endemic abuse of minors every single time the topic arises. That does not, however, extend to the vast majority of Catholics and their radically different interpretations of Catholicism.


-------------
> Some one needs to explain to me just what it is
> about Islam that is so special and distinctive to
> warrant this "hands-off" policy--unless one wants
> to be labeled Islamophobic. Really, what is the
> psychology of such an attitude? Why is it that I
> can accept my Mormon neighbors with kindness,
> while criticizing their religion, but I cannot
> accept my Muslim neighbors with kindness while
> criticizing their religion.

You can. It would be better, however, if you recognized the vast differences in interpretation of Islamic religion. It's good to distinguish between the religion and the people: it would be better to distinguish as well between the various sects and their adherents and practices.


--------------------
> What would you say to an internet Board that
> called itself "Recovery from Islam?" Presumably,
> you would think it a bastion of Islamophobics. And
> what about courageous ex-Muslims (you know, like
> ExMormons) who speak out. I suppose they are just
> part of an anti-Muslim conspiracy.

Anyone who does what you describe would be making a mistake. But you would be closer to the truth if you recognized that people pick and choose in every religious tradition: there are radical Muslims, moderate Muslims, liberal Muslims, new order Muslims, reformist Muslims and ex-Muslims--and each of these exist within each separate Islamic tradition. The notion of a monolithic Islamic religion is as wrong as the idea of a unitary body of Muslims.


----------------
> In short, what is wrong with a principle of
> kindness and tolerance to individuals, while
> allowing justified criticisms of what they
> believe; and suggesting that what they (and all of
> us) believe carries with it moral responsibility.

There is nothing wrong with that. But the first step is recognizing that you tend to assume you know what they believe, and that is an unwarranted simplification. Recognition of human complexity is a critical first step in deciding what should be criticized lest you end up grouping people together inorganically and condemning the innocent as well as the guilty.

O.K. First, thank you LW for responding.
_______________________________________________

> Right. "Islamophobia" applies to all those who
> dare criticize Islam or Muslims.

It doesn't. I despise parts of Islam--you can call it Islamophobia if you want. I simply differentiate between those versions of Islam and the better, sometimes much better, versions. Above you said that converts to Islam accept "all" of the tradition. It is only when you lump everyone together like that that Islamophobia is born.

COMMENT: First, my comment was sarcastic. But to you point, the whole matter is about the notion of "differentiation." I readily admit that there is an important difference between a terrorist Muslim, and a Muslim who has no such dispositions and is quietly trying to practice Islam and obtain some sort of spiritual benefit. I get that totally. But your idea of differentiation strikes me as not only vague and ill-defined, but a sort of "free-pass" from criticism. After all, even those Muslims who are innocent of terrorist dispositions are subject to criticism for their beliefs, including the common beliefs they share with more violent Muslims. I don't know of any one responding to this post who has "lumped together" all Muslims without differentiation between terrorist Muslims and pacifist Muslims. As such, none of us deserve the label Islamophobic.

What I noted was tautological: A person identifying as a Muslim *must* by definition embrace some set of core doctrines related to such identification. Can one be a Muslim without accepting Mohammad? Can one be a Muslim while rejecting the Quran? I do not see how this is possible. It would be like someone claiming to be a Mormon but rejecting Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. So there is a limit to what extent a Muslim can distance him or herself from Islam while still adopting the label. And, to the extent such a person is left "undifferentiated" from the core beliefs of terrorist versions of Islam, they are subject to criticism. That is NOT being Islamophobic!

__________________________________________________

I trash the Catholic church and its endemic abuse of minors every single time the topic arises. That does not, however, extend to the vast majority of Catholics and their radically different interpretations of Catholicism.

COMMENT: O.K. So would you call yourself "Catholicophobic?" I think not. More importantly, are active Catholics who revere the Papacy and support the Catholic clergy, and excuse such abuses by their silence completely blameless? And where is *your* criticism of Islam, because I have not seen it. Free-pass?
_____________________________________________

> Some one needs to explain to me just what it is
> about Islam that is so special and distinctive to
> warrant this "hands-off" policy--unless one wants
> to be labeled Islamophobic. Really, what is the
> psychology of such an attitude? Why is it that I
> can accept my Mormon neighbors with kindness,
> while criticizing their religion, but I cannot
> accept my Muslim neighbors with kindness while
> criticizing their religion.

You can. It would be better, however, if you recognized the vast differences in interpretation of Islamic religion. It's good to distinguish between the religion and the people: it would be better to distinguish as well between the various sects and their adherents and practices.

COMMENT: I am willing to do that, as I said. But where are the real theological distinctions here? Other than mere platitudes extolling "non-violence." Where does the rubber meet the road? As I said before, where do the well-established traditions get left behind, and the new "interpretations" begin. I have never seen this either well-defined, or even well-explained. So, I am left with assuming that someone who reveres Mohammad and the Quran, accepts his example and teachings. I invite you (or Human) to "differentiate" this for me--theologically. Otherwise, I have no choice but to assume that a Muslim believes Mohammad was a prophet and that the Quran is the word of God, and that my Muslim friend accepts what these sources teach them to believe.
________________________________________________

> What would you say to an internet Board that
> called itself "Recovery from Islam?" Presumably,
> you would think it a bastion of Islamophobics. And
> what about courageous ex-Muslims (you know, like
> ExMormons) who speak out. I suppose they are just
> part of an anti-Muslim conspiracy.

Anyone who does what you describe would be making a mistake.

COMMENT: Yes. Because their lives would be at risk! What does that tell you? Are non-violent Muslims totally innocent of this core Islamic implication?
________________________________________

But you would be closer to the truth if you recognized that people pick and choose in every religious tradition: there are radical Muslims, moderate Muslims, liberal Muslims, new order Muslims, reformist Muslims and ex-Muslims--and each of these exist within each separate Islamic tradition. The notion of a monolithic Islamic religion is as wrong as the idea of a unitary body of Muslims.

COMMENT: You are repeating yourself, without answering my point. What "separate Islamic tradition" distances itself from Mohammad and the Quran? Please tell me. It is THAT core allegiance to Mohammad and the Quran which unifies Islam--monolithically!
___________________________________________

> In short, what is wrong with a principle of
> kindness and tolerance to individuals, while
> allowing justified criticisms of what they
> believe; and suggesting that what they (and all of
> us) believe carries with it moral responsibility.

There is nothing wrong with that. But the first step is recognizing that you tend to assume you know what they believe, and that is an unwarranted simplification.

COMMENT: So, I am unwarranted in assuming that my Muslim neighbor believes that Mohammad was a prophet and that the Quran is the word of God? No. That is not an unwarranted simplification. And what's more, it speaks volumes about their religious mindset notwithstanding "interpretations."
______________________________________________

Recognition of human complexity is a critical first step in deciding what should be criticized lest you end up grouping people together inorganically and condemning the innocent as well as the guilty.

COMMENT: What hyperbole! So, we shouldn't criticize Islam "least we end up grouping people together inorganically and condemning the innocent as well as the guilty." What a dangerous social policy you suggest by this. You could say the very same thing about white supremacists, and countless other offensive groups. Groups (including religious groups) form for reasons, most importantly because of common beliefs, goals and attitudes. If you can't criticize the group for adhering to such offensive principles for fear of over-inclusion, how can you hold people responsible for being a members of such groups? Your view reminds me of a familiar cliché: After all, "there are good people on both sides."

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But there is no such thing as Caltholicophobia;

You've obviously never visited Northern Ireland! Look up the Orange Order.

To me, criticizing Islam is rather like criticizing Christianity. There are lots of different types of Christians. Some Christian churches are highly controlling and some are very liberal. Some Christians are by the book, and others very cafeteria. I don't think it's going too far to say that Islam, with roughly 1.8 billion adherents worldwide, is going to have a lot of different styles of practice. The number of Muslims worldwide is closer to the number of Christians worldwide (at 2.18 billion) than it is to Catholics (1.2 billion.)

I've known Muslims in the U.S. where you wouldn't even know they were Muslim until they mention celebrating a certain holiday, or going to visit relatives in Iran, Syria, or Turkey. They blend in completely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 03:02AM by summer.

Exactly.

"To me, criticizing Islam is rather like criticizing Christianity. There are lots of different types of Christians. Some Christian churches are highly controlling and some are very liberal. Some Christians are by the book, and others very cafeteria."

COMMENT: O.K. There are lots of different types of Christians. Is it fair to ask what they all have in common? Presumably, they all believe in Jesus, and supposedly the New Testament account of his life and teachings. And, if we want to know what the Christian beliefs are, we might want to read the New Testament and find out what Jesus taught. If we do that, we might conclude that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God (as that is what he claimed); that he taught love and peace, as that is what the NT says; and that he died and was resurrected, somehow for the benefit of mankind. Now, if some Christian denies any one of these things, he probably has not read the Bible, and perhaps is not a Christian at all. AFTER ALL THESE IDEAS ARE CORE, FOUNDATIONAL, DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANTY AS EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH IN CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE.
______________________________________

I don't think it's going too far to say that Islam, with roughly 1.8 billion adherents worldwide, is going to have a lot of different styles of practice. The number of Muslims worldwide is closer to the number of Christians worldwide (at 2.18 billion) than it is to Catholics (1.2 billion.)

COMMENT: O.K. There are lots of different types of Muslims. Is it fair to ask what they all have in common? Presumably, they all believe in Mohammad, and supposedly the Quran. And, if we want to know just what the Islamic beliefs are, we might want to read the Quran and find out. If we do that, we might conclude that Muslims believe that Mohammad was the prophet of Allah (as that is what he claimed) and that the Quran outlines Allah's repeated emphasis and commitment to the fundamental principle of jihad; which includes fighting and destroying unbelievers and infidels; Now, if some Muslim denies these things, he probably has not read the Quran; and maybe is not a Muslim at all. AFTER ALL THESE IDEAS ARE CORE, FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINES OF ISLAM AS EXPLICITY FOUND IN ISLAMIC SCRIPTURE.
____________________________________________

I've known Muslims in the U.S. where you wouldn't even know they were Muslim until they mention celebrating a certain holiday, or going to visit relatives in Iran, Syria, or Turkey. They blend in completely.

COMMENT: Exactly. They either know their religion or they don't. I have no problem with those who don't, and who just want an extra holiday. But those who *have* read the Quran, and *do* know and understand the doctrines of Islam, and *do* continue in their faith, have some explaining to do.

Was Mohammad *the* prophet of Allah, or wasn't he? Did Mohammad speak Allah's teachings and will through the Quran, or didn't he?

Christians rely not only on the New Testament, but also the Old Testament, which has its own elements that are questionable in a modern light. Would you wish to be held accountable for everything that the OT teaches?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 04:01PM by summer.

Consider also:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

That doesn't sound too pacifistic to me.

I realize, of course, there are such passages in the NT, but they are isolated and marginal, at best, and easily subject to interpretation and context. Such passages are clearly NOT the core doctrine or message of the NT or the teachings of Jesus, and nobody would claim that they were.

The Quran is entirely different. The violent passages are NOT incidental, peripheral, or ambiguous. They are core; and are repeatedly expressed and presented as doctrine.

So, the difference is obvious. The question is why you and others are so desperate to avoid distinctions that are clear and unavoidable.

Henry,

I don't agree with this. The NT includes by reference the OT, and there have been MANY times when Christians have taken the violent exhortations literally. That includes Mormonism as evident in the sermons in Missouri and before Mountain Meadows. Sure, today most Christians don't interpret things that way but it isn't correct to say that violence is, or isn't, integral to Christianity. The interpretation varies by time and place.

Conversely, the violent verses in the Koran are not that numerous and they have been interpreted as metaphorical by large parts of Islam for many centuries. Indeed, some of those verses are merely restatements of OT statements and hence as Christian as they are Islamic. You are taking passages as interpreted by a (spectacularly evil) minority of modern Muslims and acting as if that applies to the whole faith. That is simply not true.

I therefore disagree that I "and others are so desperate to avoid distinctions that are clear and unavoidable." It is you who are taking a massive culture and refusing to see the distinctions within it.

Right. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. It arose within the context of the Old Testament.

The truth is that the Abrahamic religions are sisters. The doctrinal differences are minimal. If the world lasts till the year 2500, historians will probably lump them all together as a single faith and look at Islam and Christianity and Judaism as subordinate sects like Hinayana and Mahayana in Buddhism.

Is it okay if I already do?

Always ahead of your time, aren't you!

Please. This is a ludicrous statement on so many levels. I cannot believe you actually think this.

And you believe you can describe 1.8 billion people as holding the same views.

I'm comfortable with exactly what I wrote.

The Catholic denomination is far fewer at 1.2 billion, and I've always said that trying to direct Catholics is like trying to herd cats. Good luck with that. Once you get above a certain number, there *will* be an incredible amount of diversity whether you like it or not.

And if in 1630 you had told a European Catholic that Protestants were Christians, or vice versa, they may well have strung you up. Historically the most brutal wars are civil wars, struggles between people who share common traditions. Over time the passions diminish and the similarities appear more clearly.

I don't agree with this. The NT includes by reference the OT, and there have been MANY times when Christians have taken the violent exhortations literally.

COMMENT: Many times? When. The Crusades and Inquisition were largely politically motivated, not motivated by doctrine. When has some modern group of Christians engaged in wholesale violence as a response to cited NT teaching, and for the purpose of subjugating religious rivals? I suppose it has happened, but the point is that any such connection is doctrinally and scripturally weak, on its face.
________________________________________

That includes Mormonism as evident in the sermons in Missouri and before Mountain Meadows.

COMMENT: Mormonism is not inherently violent. I have already dismissed isolated incidents of defensive reaction and over enthusiasm as not indicative of core religious doctrine. I would grant the same pass to Islam, if that is all it was.
____________________________________________

Sure, today most Christians don't interpret things that way but it isn't correct to say that violence is, or isn't, integral to Christianity. The interpretation varies by time and place.

COMMENT: I disagree. There is little room in Christianity for such institutional interpretations, if the NT is the standard. Again, there *is* room for such isolated "interpretations" by fanatics, but otherwise the message of Christianity is clearly nonviolent.
___________________________________________

Conversely, the violent verses in the Koran are not that numerous and they have been interpreted as metaphorical by large parts of Islam for many centuries. Indeed, some of those verses are merely restatements of OT statements and hence as Christian as they are Islamic. You are taking passages as interpreted by a (spectacularly evil) minority of modern Muslims and acting as if that applies to the whole faith. That is simply not true.

COMMENT: This is factually incorrect, and apologetic. This is not the place to debate that point, but I suggest that an interested reader read the Quran and determine for him or herself whether these passages are sparse and subject to non-violent interpretations. They are not! There are, of course, a handful of Islamic apologists (just like their Mormon counterparts) who desperately try to spin these passages away from their clear intent. But, one only has to look at the life of Mohammad to understand how *he* interpreted them. He was certainly not a hypocrite!
____________________________________________________

I therefore disagree that I "and others are so desperate to avoid distinctions that are clear and unavoidable." It is you who are taking a massive culture and refusing to see the distinctions within it.

COMMENT: The reader can judge. As a start, they might google "The Quran and Jihad" and then. most importantly, read the Quran itself. It is quite clear.

(Note: Dagny's story is not atypical. Notice he had no interest in denying or distancing himself from such passages, or spinning their interpretation. I suspect that that is how most Muslims interpret these passages--even the non-violent Muslims. They are just too explicit and clear to avoid a literal interpretation.

The Wikipedia article titled Christianity and Violence lends support to my notion that Islam is about 400 years behind Christianity in terms of a recognition that ghawd isn't really upset that other religions exist.

There was a time when Islam was a few centuries ahead of Christianity in that regard, too. Sadly these things ebb and flow over time depending on the politics and economics of the countries and regions under consideration.

That's the issue.

I would expect for them to have some criteria for the things they cherry pick as important and the things they say they believe but don't follow.

If they claim to follow God, claiming the teaching are also from God, then only select the issues that happen to align with their views, I view the person as hypocritical at best, and unreliable in how they make decisions. Never mind that God hasn't been very good about clearing any of this up.

True, we get new ideas over time for what something might mean with new interpretations, but the more self-righteous types claim to follow the Bible. We enable them by allowing the Bible to be above other literature in our culture.

I have had a Muslim acquaintance claim the Quran is from the prophet, etc. When I asked if he agrees with what it says regarding the violent bits, shockingly, he said he did and would not repudiate it. He expects respect for his religion and personal incorporation of it, but why would I trust his judgement just because he is currently not cherry picking those passages to act out? He seemed like a hypocrite just like the garden variety Christian cherry picker, but a little more disturbing in what he ACTUALLY believes is instruction from God. He doesn't miss a prayer time so no wonder people are not comfortable tying to predict what is in his heart and how he justifies it. Even though I like him as I get to know him better, I still view him as a person who I can't trust to reconcile what he says he believes, what he actually believes, and what beliefs he will act upon in any predictable way. Obviously that's his choice, but his hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are obstacles in any meaningful friendship, just like with Mormons.

I genuinely try to show how any criticism I have of religion applies to most religion. It's just a matter of degree.

I would expect for them to have some criteria for the things they cherry pick as important and the things they say they believe but don't follow.

COMMENT: I agree, but "cherry-picking" does not occur in a doctrinal vacuum. One can read a religious text and attempt to understand the overall import and scope of what is being said, and determine what is fundamental and what is not. I grant leave for reasonable cherry-picking given ancient contexts, etc., but whole-sale dismissals of repeatedly expressed doctrinal statements leaves in question whether the same religion is left intact. It also leaves doubt as to whether such dismissals are sincere.
____________________________________________

If they claim to follow God, claiming the teaching are also from God, then only select the issues that happen to align with their views, I view the person as hypocritical at best, and unreliable in how they make decisions. Never mind that God hasn't been very good about clearing any of this up.

COMMENT: Yes, and it becomes particularly difficult when the scriptural passages are expressed as coming directly from God. In the Quran, the instigation to violence is directly attributed to Allah, not to some apostle, or even Mohammad himself.
____________________________________________

True, we get new ideas over time for what something might mean with new interpretations, but the more self-righteous types claim to follow the Bible. We enable them by allowing the Bible to be above other literature in our culture.

COMMENT: I totally share your criticisms of the Bible. But the Bible does not tell my Christian neighbor that I am an infidel worthy of death. As such, it is much easier for me to tolerate his religious views.
_____________________________________________

I have had a Muslim acquaintance claim the Quran is from the prophet, etc. When I asked if he agrees with what it says regarding the violent bits, shockingly, he said he did and would not repudiate it. He expects respect for his religion and personal incorporation of it, but why would I trust his judgement just because he is currently not cherry picking those passages to act out? He seemed like a hypocrite just like the garden variety Christian cherry picker, but a little more disturbing in what he ACTUALLY believes is instruction from God. He doesn't miss a prayer time so no wonder people are not comfortable tying to predict what is in his heart and how he justifies it. Even though I like him as I get to know him better, I still view him as a person who I can't trust to reconcile what he says he believes, what he actually believes, and what beliefs he will act upon in any predictable way. Obviously that's his choice, but his hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are obstacles in any meaningful friendship, just like with Mormons.

COMMENT: Thanks for sharing. One wonders how your Muslim acquaintance would behave if the legal and social constraints on acting out his religious beliefs were removed.
________________________________________

I genuinely try to show how any criticism I have of religion applies to most religion. It's just a matter of degree.

COMMENT: Yes, the criticisms are similar in form, and it is always disconcerting when someone holds to irrational beliefs. But when such beliefs imply profound social consequences, it is understandable when a disconcerting smile and shrug of the shoulders turns to genuine fear.

Let me throw my full support behind diversity and individuality. In all environments. It acts as an inoculation of sorts against one of humanity's most aggressive illness.

The drive to homogenize society.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The drive to homogenize society.

What is this drive? Asians historically have behaved more collectively than individually? Is there something in human nature that drives us to homogenize?

Not only to homogenize but also to pasteurize! We neither seek to be skimmed nor diseased.

That was wholesome.

"Within the diversity of sameness, we find that the stress caused by immoderate relief to be not only overweening but undervalued!!

Oftentimes we find that just being whelmed is sufficient for our needs...'tis a consummation devoutly to be dissed, whether to be stupid or to be wise, aye, there is the rub!"

--Judic West, Archduke of Ferdinand, the Papal Bull Writer

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Within the diversity of sameness, we find that
> the stress caused by immoderate relief to be not
> only overweening but undervalued!!
>
> Oftentimes we find that just being whelmed is
> sufficient for our needs...'tis a consummation
> devoutly to be dissed, whether to be stupid or to
> be wise, aye, there is the rub!"
>
> --Judic West, Archduke of Ferdinand, the Papal
> Bull Writer


Aw yes as I recall the Archduke did compose tons of Bull. He was known for that.

Tell Ferdinand not, in any case, to take that final turn. It's a killer!

Another topic related to this thread is about the affects of the religion upon the people who believe in it. Anyone who was a part of Mormonism in the 1970's or before, knows that the church taught that a women's place is in the home, that the entire black race was cursed by god and that their black skin was black so that the rest of us would be able to recognize them and to discriminate against them accordingly. We were taught by the mormon church that homosexuality was a choice made by sinful individuals, and that polygamy is a devine requirement. Society has changed. Mormonism is changing. But none the less, these were docterines. When you associate with an organization and present yourself as being a member, you are continuously being influenced by the organization to accept for yourself, and to perpetuate the organization's beliefs. Someone in the 1970's who was not bigoted or a racist, might likely join the church and at some point afterward, is likely to have accepted racism and bigotry in to their personal belief system, to adhere to the beliefs of their religion.

So likewise, the goals of Mohammad and of violence as taught in the Queran are likely to be accepted over time by well meaning, diverse muslims. Mormonism is changing over time, although it is still bad. The Islamic religion doesn't believe in modern revelation. There are those who will kill you for subverting the beliefs that Mohammad taught. Those who wear the label, who claim to be diverse, and who do not follow Mohammad's teachings are deceiving themselves or if not, they are deceiving the rest of us.

Corporations are people, my friend.

Corporations are not only people, they are immortal people. They can wait the rest of us out. As church presidents come and go, the corporate sole lives-on. As people like you and I are born, live our lives, and die, docterines change so slowly that no one even notices (for the most part). The Mormon church that Brigham Young led had different docterines, and different beliefs from today's Mormon church. Some say that is the beauty of having modern revelation. But where was Jusus when the Mormon church in Brigham's day was doing and believing in bad things? Where is he now as mormon church leaders fuck everything up and refuse to be accountable for their actions? At least for the mormons there may be hope. They believe in modern revelation and change. Islam has no such mechanism without moving away from Mohammad's teachings - the core of what makes Islam be Islam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2019 11:24AM by azsteve.

"At least for the mormons there may be hope. They believe in modern revelation and change."

I doubt it. Only hope is that The Mormon Church can change for the better. It rarely does this.

It is like corporate control of heavenly mandates which only are self serving for the corporation. It is a police state religion. It is totalitarianism disguised as a Jesus movement.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus was a dictator.

Agreed!