Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

Scroll to see replies

The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real. Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.

you seem to ignore that some religions (such as Islam) are at the same time a social, economic and political ideology. They may (and, in the case of Islam, do) contain a programme for political organisation, social reform, administration of justice, family relations

At the same time, political ideologies such as Communism include clearly some religious elements : faith in some sort of fateful day (revolution), in an ideal situation arising from it (Communism), in a blueprint for attaining this state (Marxist theory) and even holy texts (Das Kapital) and charismatic, prophet-like leaders, considered as quasi-perfect (Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc)

from a more practical point of view, to draw distinctions between religious and political movements is next to impossible : they have been mixed since day one

so, I would say that discriminating among them on the basis of their label (whether "ideology" or "religion") is highly arbitrary

any ideology or religion should be examined on the basis of its contents, and treated accordingly

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 421

The Epicurean

Original post by mariachi

Not to mention, the two areas where cults are most prominent are in religion and politics. You have religious cults like the Peoples Temple established by Jim Jones, and you have political cults like the recent Maoist cult in Brixton that was in the news. Clearly then religious and political ideologies do have a lot of similarities there.

Reply 422

QE2

Original post by Inzamam99

There's no point arguing with these people.

There is always a point arguing.
Although, I've noticed that it is always the people whose arguments are found wanting who claim there is no point in arguing.

I have become more and more convinced over time that the human race is doomed to repeat the horrors of history over and over again.

Only if people insist on rejecting reason and logic in favour of superstition and dogma.

Most people are unbelievably thick unfortunately.

Bit of a generalisation.

This is the same type of person who justified their role in the atrocities of the Holocaust with "I was just following orders".

I think your argument applies perfectly to people who defend things like slavery, misogyny and killing people because of their beliefs or sexuality, simply because they have been told that their god permits it.

Lets face it, religious doctrine and dogma are epitome of "just following orders".

Reply 423

QE2

Original post by The Epicurean

Two heads of the same hydra.

Reply 424

KimKallstrom

Original post by Inzamam99

This is the same type of person who justified their role in the atrocities of the Holocaust with "I was just following orders". * D

Or when Muhammad's men massacred the banu qurayza on his orders ;-)

Reply 425

mariachi

Original post by The Epicurean

agree

I think that the crucial question is : how should we judge a political or religious movement ? on the basis of its day-to day practice ? on the basis of its ideology and holy texts ? of its compliance with the law ? of moral qualities of its leaders ?

my answer would be : all of these. The most important being, of course actual practices (rather than purely theoretical statements)

However, theoretical statements and holy texts are not to be neglected : especially if people, in concrete terms, draw inspiration from them and try to implement them

so, it's a global judgement : and religious/political movements can be judged as being totally unacceptable, highly objectionable, acceptable, commendable, excellent etc etc

these judgements are of course highly subjective and have no universal value : except where a movement is proved to be infringing the law, which is the common standard set by society for everyone, including religions

in any case, it is impossible in my view, to claim that religious movements are acceptable simply because of their nature and the general "freedom of religion" clause. And Jim Jones and his movement are just an extreme example of this

best

Reply 426

Inzamam99

Original post by KimKallstrom

Or when Muhammad's men massacred the banu qurayza on his orders ;-)

Exactly no different :smile:

And I am sure you'll agree that we as human beings should develop our own solid conscious where we do not discriminate against others based purely on what they wear or what they believe.

It's a very slippery slope

Reply 427

Good bloke

Original post by Inzamam99

Exactly no different :smile:

And I am sure you'll agree that we as human beings should develop our own solid conscious where we do not discriminate against others based purely on what they wear or what they believe.

That rather depends on whether what they believe is a threat, doesn't it, and whether the beliefs are acted on (or intended to be acted on)?

I, for instance, definitely discriminate against people who believe that all material goods and land are held in common and are there for the taking. I would never allow such a person in my house unsupervised, as I value my property and want to hang on to it.

Similarly, I wouldn't associate with anyone who believes apostates from any religion, along with atheists, should be subject to any kind of punishment and wishes that UK law reflected that and would approve severe punishments for such so-called transgressions in foreign countries they visit.

Those are perfectly reasonable examples of discrimination based on a person's beliefs.

Reply 428

BaconandSauce

Original post by Inzamam99

or what they believe.

Sorry but yes we can. For example I will continue to discriminate against people who are homophobic or racist when considering people for employment as I work with openly gay people and people of all races.

Reply 429

ElsMoll

Original post by squish562

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37209605

The owner says that he won't serve Muslims because they are committing terror attacks in France.

Tbh he's ruined his own business- I doubt a lot of customers are going to go to it now that the owner is famous for being an Islamophobe...

I am French and I can tell you that I when I watched the news, they showed the video and it was so stupid what he was saying that I couldnt believe in.
But the better was his explanation....he said that he loose his temper because a member of his family died in one of the Paris' attact. Even though his words was so rude. And of course people wont go anymore to his restaurant...I wont personally. Generalization angers me too much for that.