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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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.



    You fail to see the relevance of this? Either you're deliberately lying, or just too foolish to see the relevance thereof.
    What is the relevance of some aspects of Christianity being good? Especially those that exist outside of it...

    What was their motive for preserving it? Why didn't they spread it? Why did they discriminate against women?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    So their refusal or inability to critically think what they are being spoon fed is an excuse?
    Until they are aware of the other sides of the argument, yes.
    I would not condemn the illiterate goatherd in remote, rural Afghanistan for his intolerant views because he has no sense of context against which to judge it.
    But then, am I now displaying the "soft racism of low expectation" that I criticise others for?

    It's a bit of a minefield isn't it (inappropriate pun not intended).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    so, there is no general rule : can we have a precise idea of the exact beliefs that single individual Muslims hold ? 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 with a whisk of the 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
    If you wish to limit the growth of Muslims on the grounds that it'll lead to the rise of intolerance, violence and other values antithetical to what we believe in, an effective method would be to publicly shame and call out Muslims wherever you see them in order to deter public displays of Islam. Combined with other anti-Muslim practises, this should surely ensure Muslims don't take over Britain. Such methods would be morally obligatory regardless of what the law says. We base our laws on our moral values, not the other way around.

    Are you willing to commit to such an undertaking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Until they are aware of the other sides of the argument, yes.
    I would not condemn the illiterate goatherd in remote, rural Afghanistan for his intolerant views because he has no sense of context against which to judge it.
    But then, am I now displaying the "soft racism of low expectation" that I criticise others for?

    It's a bit of a minefield isn't it (inappropriate pun not intended).
    I agree with you, but that is one aspect that is wrong with religion - it is indoctrination. It doesn't encourage people to think outside the box. Something like this is what I wanted the other poster to say because it's exactly one of the criticisms...

    My parents never tried to teach me morals, just implicitly by their actions. The only thing my dad ever really said is do not harm others. In the end I too have very similar views and morals as my parents, but there are multiple issues where we have completely opposing views. This kind of openness is not encouraged, well it's even actively discouraged within religion. Particularly Islam. You are encouraged to question the Quran - but only with a scholar there, with prepared answers for everything.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    We base our laws on our moral values, not the other way around.
    our moral values differ widely. Our law is what unites us.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    our moral values differ widely. Our law is what unites us.
    Our moral conclusions may differ wildly, but our moral axioms do not. Laws do not unite us; one may disagree with laws that one deems unjust.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I agree with you, but that is one aspect that is wrong with religion - it is indoctrination. It doesn't encourage people to think outside the box.
    while I personally agree, in my view the main problem is that religions claim some sort of special status, which differentiates them from secular ideologies : while, in my view, they are in essence the same, and should be treated in the same way
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    while I personally agree, in my view the main problem is that religions claim some sort of special status, which differentiates them from secular ideologies : while, in my view, they are in essence the same, and should be treated in the same way
    Exactly. People look down on sects and cults, but "religion" is special?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Our moral conclusions may differ wildly, but our moral axioms do not. Laws do not unite us; one may disagree with laws that one deems unjust.
    wrong. Laws do unite us, because we all have to abide by them, even if we disagree with them

    as to the common moral axioms, this is widely debatable
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    You're essentially saying hatred for most Muslims is justified on the grounds that they associate with a religion you deem abhorrent. That's anti-Muslim bigotry.
    First, I have been putting "hate" in bunny ears because I don't think it is an appropriate term. I prefer WBZ's "have something against", but it is a bit unwieldy.

    Second, I do not think mere "association with" warrants "having something against". It requires explicit expression of belief in infallible immutability.

    But yeah, I guess that if someone claims that husbands may beat disobedient wives, consensual adult lovers should be flogged, sisters deserve half the inheritance of brothers, a woman's testimony is inferior to a man's, and so on, then I do indeed "have something against them".
    Someone has yet to satisfactorily explain why this is wrong.

    Looks like you've found a way of resolving the turmoil; the OP, and subsequently any distinctions you've made between hatred of Islam vs hatred of followers of Islam is no longer valid.
    This all depends on level of, and expression of belief.
    It is wrong to "have something against" all "Muslims" because we have no way of knowing where they all sit on the scale of belief. All the Muslims I was friends with at uni would not be called "Muslims" by the ISOC regulars on here. Most drank alcohol, some committed zina, few regularly prayed salah, all explicitly rejected homophopia, death for apostasy, etc (we discussed it at length, many times) - but all self-identified as Muslims. Obviously, i did not "have something against" them.

    BUT if a Muslim, with knowledge of their contents, insists on the infallible immutability of the Quran and the perfect example of Muhammad, why is it wrong to "have something against" them, when it is not wrong to "have something against" people with different but similarly unacceptable beliefs.

    I admit that after going through these arguments, my position has shifted ever so slightly from my more polarised, original position. I think that what I have come to realise is that (in the context of absolute belief) there is no difference between "Islam" and "Muslim", just as there is no real difference between "fascist" and "fascism". One is simply someone who follows the other. We have just been kidding ourselves because of the different terms "Islam" and "Muslim". If someone who absolutely believes in the perfect truth of Islam had always been called and "Islamist", it would have made things clearer.

    So, to sum up (phew!) "having something against" "Islamists" is not "anti-Muslim bigotry".
    "Having something against" all "Muslims", is.
    I'm off out now to buy a new " key!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Having something against Muslims based on the assumption that they believe in all of the things you mentioned above is bigotry for a simple reason and that is: you do not know.
    I absolutely agree. See my reply to Dima above for an extended explanation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    What is the relevance of some aspects of Christianity being good? Especially those that exist outside of it...

    What was their motive for preserving it? Why didn't they spread it? Why did they discriminate against women?
    Maybe because the will to act upon the goodness would not be as prevalent without some religion.

    Consequentialism doesn't care for motives and intentions. I merely disputed your historically inaccurate assertions about religion being a non-factor in the advancement of sciences.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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?
    The point of this thread (unlike other similar ones) was to stimulate discussion. I was going over arguments and I found that I wasn't entirely clear that my original, polarised position was completely tenable. I think I have resolved the issue somewhat, but it's still a bit fuzzy. And I would question the reasoning of anyone who claims the issue can be crystallised into and "either/or" position.

    I agree that the Nazi analogy is a little simplistic, but the fundamental principle still applies (I think, pretty much)

    What I still object to is being called a bigot because I find some people's beliefs unacceptable (not by you, obviously).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Maybe because the will to act upon the goodness would not be as prevalent without some religion.

    Consequentialism doesn't care for motives and intentions. I merely disputed your historically inaccurate assertions about religion being a non-factor in the advancement of sciences.
    Ok you got me. It's not a non-factor. Let's call it minor then.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I already answered this when inhuman asked me the exact same question.
    Sorry, missed it.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I thought that Islam has nothing to do with race, so you contradict yourself when you call it "soft racism".
    It's just an expression that I have come across recently. It is the principle, rather than the strict definition of terms, that applies.

    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.
    If those Christians and Jews expressed the total belief in the infallible immutability of scripture, then yes, why not?

    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.
    And this is the point I made earlier. It depends entirely on where people place themselvs on the scale of belief. Someone (Mariachi?) made the point excellently earlier using Communism in the 70s.

    Henceforth I shall use "Islamist" to denote those who absolutely and expressly believe in the infallible immutability of the Quran and the perfection of Muhammad's example, and "Muslim" do denote those with a soft, cultural acquisition of belief.
    It is entirely reasonable to "have something against" Islamists.
    It is entirely unreasonable to "have something against" Muslims.
    I think.

    Hope that clears it up for you as well as I think it has cleared it up for me!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who the hell wants to make fun out of another religion its just not right!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyuwannaknow)
    Who the hell wants to make fun out of another religion its just not right!!!
    Ridicule, mockery and satire have long been important elements in the liberal, enlightened, democratic process. Royalty, politicians, the Church, captains of industry, etc, have all been the butt of lampoon and fun-making at the hands of the press, commentators and artists.
    Why do you think that this long and rich tradition should suddenly be curtailed?
    Or is it just one particular target that you think requires protection?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyuwannaknow)
    Who the hell wants to make fun out of another religion its just not right!!!
    It's not about that, it's about criticising the religious teachings. If I say that it's wrong that Islam teaches that a woman must obey her husband and that this teaching is oppressive then I am disagreeing with it, not "making fun" of it. No idea should be above criticism and refusing to voice a negative opinion of these things will lead to people being oppressed.

    With regards to simply "making fun" of a religion, I think that it is immature and serves no purpose but people who want to do it should be able to.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    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.