Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Nuance, sophistication and the collective human experience continues to elude your binary, fanatical perspective.
    Aw, got nothing left to say other than banal insults? You have already started ignoring my other argument. Typical alevel tactic, ignore those that don't fall for your fallacious, intellectually dishonest arguments.

    Edit: ok before you accuse me of not actually making a point, although given your behavior that is perfectly acceptable, i am full aware the issue is not so black and white. but i want you to tell me the real reason why. because i think you and i bot know that the reason for that is one of the key reason I personally criticize religion, and yes islam in particular, in the first place.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    It is though, I agree that some people are brainwashed into religion but too many people act like religion is something that can't be helped.
    Not some, most. Most people simply do not think critically enough to question what's conventional wisdom and norm in their societies.

    And I don't see why any ex-religious person would continue to identify as that religion unless they feared the reaction of not identifying as it from friends and family.
    I've just stated why: shared cultural heritage and identity.

    Well for instance insisting that you wear a burka if you're employed in a job where it isn't appropriate.
    I agree with the ban on face veils in courts.

    Or insisting that you have your own separate courts of law that are based on your religion's law rather than the country's law.
    Those religious courts are not legally recognised as authoritative; partaking in such communal "courts" as a means of resolving conflicts is voluntary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    OK. Why not?

    If you can reasonably "hate" group A because of their ideological beliefs, why is it unreasonable to "hate" group B for holding similarly unacceptable beliefs?

    Do not refer to any specific groups. Just explain why the principle is wrong.
    So what was the point of this thread in the first place if you think that anti-Muslim bigotry is fine on the basis of "their beliefs", which would not be the same for every Muslim anyway, considering how divided Muslims are with regards to sects and belief systems?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Aw, got nothing left to say other than banal insults? You have already started ignoring my other argument. Typical alevel tactic, ignore those that don't fall for your fallacious, intellectually dishonest arguments.

    Edit: ok before you accuse me of not actually making a point, although given your behavior that is perfectly acceptable, i am full aware the issue is not so black and white. but i want you to tell me the real reason why. because i think you and i bot know that the reason for that is one of the key reason I personally criticize religion, and yes islam in particular, in the first place.
    Your other argument merits no further response from me. I have no desire to entertain your false analogies.

    I've explained elsewhere why society has learned to tolerate religions while the same courtesy is not extended to intolerant socio-political ideologies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    What have I said that would suggest that I have no problem with someone who is anti-Gay or anti-Black? Those are forms of bigotry as well.
    Would you call your intolerance of these people because of their beliefs "bigotry"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Your other argument merits no further response from me. I have no desire to entertain your false analogies.

    I've explained elsewhere why society has learned to tolerate religions while the same courtesy is not extended to intolerant socio-political ideologies.
    They are not false. You just have no counter argument. But suit yourself. I don't really expect anything else from you.

    Has society learned it? Learned? Or was it forced upon them? And have people over time repeatedly questioned and opposed it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    discriminating 'hating" Muslims is just as bad as discriminating "hating" homosexuals, blacks, Poles, plumbers
    But none of these groups are defined by an acquired ideology, a set of beliefs. We must compare like with like.

    Is "hating" Muslims different from "hating" Nazis, Fascists, Marxists, etc?
    I'm not entirely sure that it is, on a theoretical level.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Has society learned it? Learned? Or was it forced upon them? And have people over time repeatedly questioned and opposed it?
    Oh no, freedom of religion and the willingness to coexist with people holding different metaphysical beliefs was forced uponeveryone! How oppressive! Maybe you would've liked it better in the Soviet Union!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Not some, most. Most people simply do not think critically enough to question what's conventional wisdom and norm in their societies.
    Not having the intelligence to think for yourself is not an excuse, you are still choosing to subscribe to these beliefs regardless of whether you only did it because it's "the norm" or not.

    I've just stated why: shared cultural heritage and identity.
    Culture and religion, while closely linked, are not the same thing. You can still be a part of that culture without having to be that religion. And the majority of people who have made the conscious decision to leave a religion are unlikely to still claim to be a member as there's probably a very good reason they left it in the first place.

    I agree with the ban on face veils in courts.
    I stand by that this is something that's also not acceptable in certain jobs.

    Those religious courts are not legally recognised as authoritative; partaking in such communal "courts" as a means of resolving conflicts is voluntary.
    Yes but who says people are using them voluntarily? I wouldn't be surprised if people (particularly women) are forced to use these courts instead of legal ones and they are often treated unfairly. You can find cases of women being denied divorces or given unfair divorce settlements in these courts and there's nothing the legal courts can do about it, especially if they were never legally married.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Would you call your intolerance of these people because of their beliefs "bigotry"?
    I already answered this when inhuman asked me the exact same question.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Someone is not an anti-Muslim bigot if they challenge the views of an extremist who believes that non-Muslims are the worst of the creation and should be killed, subjugated etc. An anti-Muslim bigot would abuse Muslims on the basis of their being Muslims, regardless of what they believe.
    But here, you are making the assumption that Muslims do not really believe what they profess to believe. It is almost patronising, saying "yes, I know what the Quran and sunnah say, and I know that the vast majority of Muslims claim the Quran is infallibly immutable, and Muhammad the best of creation, but they dont really mean it, they don't really understand the implications like I do".

    Is it, dare I say, the soft racism of low expectations again?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Oh no, freedom of religion and the willingness to coexist with people holding different metaphysical beliefs was forced uponeveryone! How oppressive! Maybe you would've liked it better in the Soviet Union!
    The blatant hypocrisy in the status of something because it is a "religion" has most certainly been forced into people over millennia of oppression.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But here, you are making the assumption that Muslims do not really believe what they profess to believe. It is almost patronising, saying "yes, I know what the Quran and sunnah say, and I know that the vast majority of Muslims claim the Quran is infallibly immutable, and Muhammad the best of creation, but they dont really mean it, they don't really understand the implications like I do".

    Is it, dare I say, the soft racism of low expectations again?
    I thought that Islam has nothing to do with race, so you contradict yourself when you call it "soft racism". Furthermore, am I to automatically assume when I meet a Christian that they believe that Gays are evil and are to be put to death? Or that any Jew I meet believes that gentiles are inferior and can be treated as such? After all, that's what their religious books teach.

    Or if I just assume that they are decent human beings (as most people are) and treat them as such, is that "soft racism"? The fact of the matter is that much like the other two faiths, most Muslims have not read the Qur'an. They are told by their imams to pray, fast, be good to their parents and their neighbours and so forth, that's what religion is to them. Or they have memorised it in Arabic but can't understand the language, or they interpret it in such a way that it comes across as much more tolerant than it is in it's original form and without all of the mental linguistics.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by howitoughttobe)
    Not having the intelligence to think for yourself is not an excuse, you are still choosing to subscribe to these beliefs regardless of whether you only did it because it's "the norm" or not.
    It's not an excuse, more of an explanation. Again, I'd disagree with your use of the word "choosing".

    Culture and religion, while closely linked, are not the same thing. You can still be a part of that culture without having to be that religion. And the majority of people who have made the conscious decision to leave a religion are unlikely to still claim to be a member as there's probably a very good reason they left it in the first place.
    Most ex-Christians and ex-Muslims who do not believe in the theological claims of their religions, do continue to strongly identify with the shared ethno-religious identify they're accustomed to. They may not be the same thing, but the close link is still very real.

    I stand by that this is something that's also not acceptable in certain jobs.
    Depends entirely on the job. For security and hygiene purposes, sure; for reasons to do with the employers' personal dislike of the face-veil, then that's discriminatory.

    Yes but who says people are using them voluntarily? I wouldn't be surprised if people (particularly women) are forced to use these courts instead of legal ones and they are often treated unfairly. You can find cases of women being denied divorces or given unfair divorce settlements in these courts and there's nothing the legal courts can do about it, especially if they were never legally married.
    I'm aware of these cases, having spoken to Muslim women who had bad experiences with these institutions. But this isn't an argument for the eradication of such courts; it's possible to circumvent this problem by increasing efforts to educate vulnerable citizens about their rights, without violating the freedom to seek and give religious advice.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    The blatant hypocrisy in the status of something because it is a "religion" has most certainly been forced into people over millennia of oppression.
    Perhaps because religion is in some sense beneficial to society, and this is subconsciously recognised by people in most societies. At least, that's what the government thinks https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ic-benefit.pdf
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    How is being tolerant of Muslims "being tolerant of the intolerant"?
    Islam is a fundamentally intolerant ideology.
    Muslims believe that Islam is perfect.
    To be a Muslim, by definition, you hold intorelant beliefs.
    You cannot separate "Islam" and "Muslims" without making the unfounded assumption that Muslims do not believe in Islam!

    I think that pehaps people are confused by the use of two different terms. It is much easier to understand with "racist" and "racism", or "fascist" and "fascism", or "Marxist" and "Marxism".
    No one would take the argument "completely believing in fascism doesn't make you a fascist" seriously.

    Obviously, Islam is slightly different because of the childhood indoctrination/cultural issue, but if, by adulthood, you are claiming complete belief in an ideology that you claim to be perfect, surely the same rules should apply as with belief in any other ideology?

    And I am yet to be convinced that being intolerant of strongly held intolerant beliefs is wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I think Douglas Murray is a bigot, I never called you one and defended you when someone suggested it on a different thread.
    I must have misremembered the exchange.
    If I did, I apologise for the unwarranted accusation.

    I still don't think he's a bigot, although I don't agree with everything he says.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Perhaps because religion is in some sense beneficial to society, and this is subconsciously recognised by people in most societies. At least, that's what the government thinks https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ic-benefit.pdf
    Most progress and enlightenment throughout history has come despite religion. The Church even controlled education in order to keep the populace uneducated in order to maintain their power more easily.

    And skimming that, that has everything to do with charity. And no one is denying that there are plenty of religious charities out there that do good work. I fail to see even the slightest of relevance to this discussion.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But none of these groups are defined by an acquired ideology, a set of beliefs. We must compare like with like.

    Is "hating" Muslims different from "hating" Nazis, Fascists, Marxists, etc?
    I'm not entirely sure that it is, on a theoretical level.
    we are here in very murky waters

    "anti-Muslim bigotry" is of course a very vague concept, which can be used in any direction you prefer: barely any better than "Islamophobia". While it does seem an improvement (since it differentiates between "hating" Islam and "hating" Muslims) it can be used in practice as indiscriminately as its infamous predecessor

    It has of course become a truism that "all generalisations and prejudices are wrong". And this is, in itself a generalisation and a prejudice

    If I happen to know that a certain Amazonian tribe practices cannibalism, I will be excused for not accepting an invitation to dinner by a member of that particular tribe, even if my prospective host may be innocent of this disquieting practice

    So, in practice, not all prejudices and generalisations are wrong : in fact, discrimination, in some cases, may be justified : e.g. in 1950s-1960s West Germany, Communists were excluded from certain sensitive jobs (Berufsverbot) on the assumption that their loyalty to the State was, at best, dubious (and in fact, Communist spies were all over the place, and even in the PM's private office)

    however, this was hotly debated, and many accused Germany of going against basic freedoms and human rights - bans were eventually lifted, when the feeling of danger subsided

    so, there is no general rule, and I will revise my position : some prejudices in fact are reasonable, and some are not. Can we have a precise idea of the exact beliefs that single individual Muslims may hold ? and yes, at the moment, most of them are peaceful people, who don't seem to embody any particular threat to our society : but how will this evolve in the future, especially when numbers might increase, and with numbers requests and expectations for "special treatment" ?

    these are all serious considerations, that we cannot simply dismiss out of hand, accusing people of Islamophobia or bigotry. And the concept itself of "bigotry" is, in my view, of very little help

    in my view, the only standard can be the law : we are free to dislike, oppose, and even hate whatever and whomever we wish , within the limits of the law

    calls to violence or discrimination are of course punishable by existing legislation : and "bigotry" hardly constitutes a workable concept, in this context

    best
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Most progress and enlightenment throughout history has come despite religion. The Church even controlled education in order to keep the populace uneducated in order to maintain their power more easily.
    Actually, the religious institutions of Christianity (and to some extent, Islam) helped preserve knowledge. One might even say the the church is really one of the only reasons intellectualism survived during the middle ages.

    And skimming that, that has everything to do with charity. And no one is denying that there are plenty of religious charities out there that do good work. I fail to see even the slightest of relevance to this discussion.
    You fail to see the relevance of this? Either you're deliberately lying, or just too foolish to see the relevance thereof.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.