The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

Good thread, ebrown, and certainly timely and topical.

Disclaimer now - what follows is just my take here - what timber thinks. Take it for no more than that.

I'm in full agreement with you, and with most other participants in this particular discussion as regards the idiocy, ethical and intellectual bankruptcy, and just in general low practice of casting things in terms of perjoratives, religious, sexual, or racial.

Doing so, even in jest or in passing, serves merely to keep the fires going. Regardless the perpetrator's perspective, the act identifies the perpetrator as an enabler of the problem, and one at least at that moment of issuing the slur devoid of logic or reason.

A whole buncha folks here - of all persuasions and ideologies - get all wadded up when presented with strongly opposing views. There is no reason, justification, or excuse for nastiness. Criticism, yes. Rebuttal, point-counterpoint, yes. Sarcasm, yes, even that, if civil and adult. Outright inter-personal nastiness, no. Period. And there is no reason, justification, or excuse for the intellectual and ethical laziness of broad-brushing an entire race, religion, or other similarly broad demographic with slurs, vituperations, and insults. None. Period. In no way does that behavior address the problem; it is part-and-parcel of the problem.

To the specific matter of bigotry here on A2K, yes, it shows up from time to time, and in various guises. Whether its anti-Arab, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-Anything, bigotry is bigotry and is rude, ignorant, and indefensible. Still, on almost any forum, almost any discussion, some idiot will cast flame bait, and some other idiot or idiots will eagerly take it and run with it. Neither set of idiots sees the idiocy of the practice. (irony intended Twisted Evil

)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I certainly agree that no innocent person should be held responsible for the acts of other people of the same religion in any way, shape, or form.

However, having said that, I have a question for ebrown.

1. During the past 50 years, that is, modern times
2. Considering only acts of terrorism, that is, acts directed specifically against non-combatants on purpose
3. Considering only acts motivated by religion
4. Considering only acts where the intention is bodily harm

how does Islam stack up to other religions, e.g. Christianity? If you dare, give me a straight answer to this question without raising a thousand side issues.

Brandon,

You are raising side issues, not me.

In my opinion one of the worst acts of brutality in the past 50 years was Rwanda. This was directed specifically against non-combatants on purpose and the intention was bodily harm.

Do you think "motivated by religion" is an issue that matters? If this was not "motivated by religion" does it lessen the barbarism. Are the Christians who commited this crime somehow absolved because they weren't "motivated by religion".

Talk about side issues!

One primary technique used to justify bigotry is to define terms and then use them selectively to defame one ethnic groups while ignoring others. The "motivated by religion" theme is a perfect example (and you brought it up, not me).

Muslim-Jewish Strife started when there was a conflict over land between the Palestinians and the new state of Israel. Before this, Muslims and Jews lived pretty peacefully for centuries-- while Christians were killing Jews in pogroms and Inquisitions and such.

So which attacks are part of a bloody political battle for land, and which are "motivated by religion". Remember that from the Civil war to George W. Bush people have used deeply religious rhetoric to justify and support political ends.

I don't think it much matters, the result is the same.

Christians slaughtering innocent men, women and children for "non-religious" reasons is just as bad as Muslims slaughtering innocents for whatever reaon you would ascribe.

I will condemn both. I will not defame a religion, or resort to ethnic slurs.

No side issues here.

I see that you refuse to answer the question as posed.

The question is not whether violence not motivated by religion is just as bad or not. Of course it's just as bad. However, I have posed a question to you designed to discover which religion itself inspires the most violence in this time period, not centuries ago. It is not defaming a religion or anything else to quote accurate statistics.

I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to.

0 Replies

Brandon, this is for you, in particular.

Since it's timely.... the 10 anniversary of the mass genocide in Kosovo is taking place currently.

Here's a link to an article written by "Edward Joseph served in the Balkans from 1992 to 2003, on active duty with the U.S. Army and with the United Nations, the International Crisis Group and several relief agencies" about what he saw there and about a new video that's surfaced showing some of the massacre.

Kosova Report

Quote:

The recently discovered video, broadcast last month in Serbia, is sickening proof of what happened to the Muslim men of Srebrenica 10 years ago. Tomorrow, world leaders and dignitaries will gather to remember the approximately 7,800 men and boys who were murdered there by Serbian troops in the worst mass killing in Europe since World War II.

Please read the whole article.

0 Replies

Re: The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.
Thank you for all of your initial post in this thread, ebrown_p, particularly ...

ebrown_p wrote:

<snip>

The point is you don't stop Al Qaida by attacking Muslims, any more than you stop the KKK by attacking Christians.
------

I am not opposed to religion-- although some are, and maybe based on the evidence I should be. I believe there are good people who find meaning in all religions. There are also extremists in each religion who use faith to justify barbaric acts.

But it is clear that when compared, no religion is clearly worse.

Why can't we condemn people who do bad things-- regardless of their religion-- and accept the rights of the rest of us to live peaceful lives without facing ethnic hatred and predjudice?

0 Replies

brandon wrote : " I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to. "

the whole question sounds like the old : "have you stopped beating your wife ? I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to. "

can we have an answer please, brandon ? hbg

0 Replies

I spent most of today with neighbours who are Muslim refugees from Kosovo. As much as I'm glad to have them as neighbours, I'd rather it was safe for them to be home as a family - not dispersed around the globe.

0 Replies

Granted, there was lots of death all over the place in the former Yugoslavia, but this was probably the single most atrocious event of the long war. And, under our peace-keeping noses.

0 Replies

I haven't read all the responses, but wanted to say that I couldn't agree more, EB!

0 Replies

Littlek, I just read the Kosova Report and was sickened. Christians< Muslims, Aryan Nation, Christian Identity--all can and do twist the teachings of the bible or the Koran.

Murder and hatred aren't limited to any one religion.

0 Replies

Diane, tis true. The war in former Yugoslavia was evidence that murder and hatred cut in all directions. There were issues in serbia/croatia/kosovo/etc that went beyond religion. But, religion seems to have a way of making people all riled up like nothing else does - moreso even than politics. The bits of politics we get riled up about are largely religion-based.

0 Replies

i have zero tolerance for racial/ethnic/religious slurs, and i'm heartened that many at a2k feel the same way. i especially want to express appreciation for ebrown, for starting the thread, and timberlandko, for condemning the tactics employed by people who have political views that resemble his, if i'm not mistaken.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

brandon wrote : " I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to. "

the whole question sounds like the old : "have you stopped beating your wife ? I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to. "

can we have an answer please, brandon ? hbg

The question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is unfair because answering either yes or no implies that you have beaten your wife, when you may not have at all. How does my question below fall into such a category?

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. During the past 50 years, that is, modern times
2. Considering only acts of terrorism, that is, acts directed specifically against non-combatants on purpose
3. Considering only acts motivated by religion
4. Considering only acts where the intention is bodily harm

how does Islam stack up to other religions, e.g. Christianity?

This is a perfectly reasonable question designed to discover who are the biggest religious terrorists now. How is that like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I assert that your point is illogical and wrong.

0 Replies

incidentally, for anyone who wants to learn more about the Middle East than can be gleaned from the mass media, i recommend viewing the DVD "Control Room". it's a profile of Al Jazeera, the Arabic TV channel, and it's an eye opener. i rented it from Blockbuster, so it should be readily available.

0 Replies

brandon wrote:

I see that you refuse to answer the question as posed.

The question is not whether violence not motivated by religion is just as bad or not. Of course it's just as bad. However, I have posed a question to you designed to discover which religion itself inspires the most violence in this time period, not centuries ago. It is not defaming a religion or anything else to quote accurate statistics.

I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to.

Brandon, I will play your game, then I will tell you why I find it so disgusting. I hope you listen to the second part.

My answer... which I made clear in my first post (and every subsequent post) is that all the major religions are roughly equivalent. I also explained why the term "religiously motivated" is meaningless since you can define this any way you want. Are Palestinians bombers who are attacking Israel "religious terrorists" or political ones. How can you tell?

But let's play the game. Al Qaida (and 9/11) would probably be counted as religious terrorism even though Osama uses political rhetoric as well. The Christian Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda should be counted "religious terrorists", I would assume the Catholic terrorism against Protestants and the Protestant terrorism against Catholics are "religious" acts.

I assume you dont consider the atrocity that Christians who slaughtered 800,000 people in Rwanda was a "religious" act, so it doesn't count heh?

Whether Palestinian bomb attacks (including suicide bomb attacks) should be considered Religious is debatable as they are in a conflict over land and protesting what they see as an occupation. If we count the Palestinian attacks as religious, we should probably count the similar ETA attacks (from Christian basques) the same.

But even so, in the past 50 years Christians have commited brutal acts... in roughly comparable numbers to Muslims.

I will let you count up the score (I get 5-4), but who cares??? The game you play is rather absurd in a revolting kind of way.

There I played your game, now what is your point?

If I understand your goal, you are trying to say that Islam is a more barbaric religion than the other religions, If this is your goal, this is what I am so angry about.

This is the very definition of religious and ethnic bigotry. You are fomenting hatred not based on the actions of terrorists, but on the faith and culture of millions of non-terrorists.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

brandon wrote:

I see that you refuse to answer the question as posed.

The question is not whether violence not motivated by religion is just as bad or not. Of course it's just as bad. However, I have posed a question to you designed to discover which religion itself inspires the most violence in this time period, not centuries ago. It is not defaming a religion or anything else to quote accurate statistics.

I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to.

Brandon, I will play your game, then I will tell you why I find it so disgusting. I hope you listen to the second part.

My answer... which I made clear in my first post (and every subsequent post) is that all the major religions are roughly equivalent. I also explained why the term "religiously motivated" is meaningless since you can define this any way you want. Are Palestinians bombers who are attacking Israel "religious terrorists" or political ones. How can you tell?

But let's play the game. Al Qaida (and 9/11) would probably be counted as religious terrorism even though Osama uses political rhetoric as well. The Christian Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda should be counted "religious terrorists", I would assume the Catholic terrorism against Protestants and the Protestant terrorism against Catholics are "religious" acts.

I assume you dont consider the atrocity that Christians who slaughtered 800,000 people in Rwanda was a "religious" act, so it doesn't count heh?

Whether Palestinian bomb attacks (including suicide bomb attacks) should be considered Religious is debatable as they are in a conflict over land and protesting what they see as an occupation. If we count the Palestinian attacks as religious, we should probably count the similar ETA attacks (from Christian basques) the same.

But even so, in the past 50 years Christians have commited brutal acts... in roughly comparable numbers to Muslims.

I will let you count up the score (I get 5-4), but who cares??? The game you play is rather absurd in a revolting kind of way.

There I played your game, now what is your point?

If I understand your goal, you are trying to say that Islam is a more barbaric religion than the other religions, If this is your goal, this is what I am so angry about.

This is the very definition of religious and ethnic bigotry. You are fomenting hatred not based on the actions of terrorists, but on the faith and culture of millions of non-terrorists.

No, actually you didn't play his game.
You are being disingenuous.
There is a rather large difference between tribal; ethnic; and religious conflicts.
You cite Rwanda as your prime example. You are fully aware that it was a tribal/ethnic conflict. Yet you wish to label it Christian for your purposes.

I fully agree and believe, and I suspect that Brandon does also, that there are millions of Muslims who are sickened and revolted by what Islamic fascist death cultists do in the name of their G-d; of their religion. That is a straightforward fact.
You refuse to acknowledge the corollary - that there are millions of Muslims who use the tenets of Islam to justify the murder of innocents and who actively carry out such actions.
Your attempts to lump "all religions" this category is also disingenous.
There are no Christians in nearly every country of the world murdering innocents based on Christian ideology. The same applies to Jews; Hindus; Taoists; etc.
However, there are Muslims in a plethora of countries from the Phillipines to England; from Sudan to Spain; from Nigeria to the United States; from Iraq to Holland; from India to Thailand; from Kenya to Afghanistan; from more countries that I care to list - that are, deliberately, with malice aforethought, murdering innocent people - fellow Muslims; Christians; Jews; Hindus; pagans; all peoples of all religions, because they believe that their religion allows and encourages this kind of murder.
That is a fact.
And, that fact makes you angry.

0 Replies

Yes, if asking you merely to cite correct statistics makes you angry, then that's your problem. Whatever is the truth on this score is the truth, and it associates one with no particular ideology to state it. There's 9/11, the Cole, recent train bombing in London, the Achille Lauro in which an old crippled man in a wheel chair was thrown overboard a ship for being Jewish, and many, many others. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has stated that one of its goals is to forcibly convert us to Islam. Now tell me about the deliberate attacks on civilians in the Middle East by Christian terrorists, Eric.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I see that you refuse to answer the question as posed.

How facile--of course he refuses to answer a loaded question. You pride yourself, justifiably, on your scientific knowledge. What do you consider an investigation which is framed to arrive at a certain result, one in which one is only allowed to look at certain specified data, but no others?

Quote:

I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to.

This is worse than facile, it is self-righteous nonsense. His point about Rwanda is telling, but i doubt you want to discuss that. Nearly a million peopled killed, most hacked to death with machetes because the vicious, hateful people who killed them were just as poor as they were, and it was cheaper than guns and ammunition.

Nothing you are attempting to force on anyone else's point of view changes the core of E_brown's statement. It is racist to condemn all of the co-religionists of the fanatical terrorists--just as wrong as it would be to condemn every Christian in America for the actions of Eric Rudolph. What is more, it is vile and scurrilous to deploy racist epithets against an entire body of people on such a basis--it is hateful.

And finally, reverting to my point, the lowest, most scurrilous position is that which condemns any who object to anti-Arab or anti-Muslim hate speech as supporters of the terrorists. You have not done that, to my knowledge, and i don't accuse you of it--but it is a short step from the extremist view you're trying to push, which is essentially that Islam is evil, that Islam is the enemy, to the lower orders of vituperation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I see that you refuse to answer the question as posed.

How facile--of course he refuses to answer a loaded question. You pride yourself, justifiably, on your scientific knowledge. What do you consider an investigation which is framed to arrive at a certain result, one in which one is only allowed to look at certain specified data, but no others?

Quote:
I ask again that you provide an answer to the question I directed to you. I don't think you dare to.

This is worse than facile, it is self-righteous nonsense. His point about Rwanda is telling, but i doubt you want to discuss that. Nearly a million peopled killed, most hacked to death with machetes because the vicious, hateful people who killed them were just as poor as they were, and it was cheaper than guns and ammunition.

Nothing you are attempting to force on anyone else's point of view changes the core of E_brown's statement. It is racist to condemn all of the co-religionists of the fanatical terrorists--just as wrong as it would be to condemn every Christian in America for the actions of Eric Rudolph. What is more, it is vile and scurrilous to deploy racist epithets against an entire body of people on such a basis--it is hateful.

And finally, reverting to my point, the lowest, most scurrilous position is that which condemns any who object to anti-Arab or anti-Muslim hate speech as supporters of the terrorists. You have not done that, to my knowledge, and i don't accuse you of it--but it is a short step from the extremist view you're trying to push, which is essentially that Islam is evil, that Islam is the enemy, to the lower orders of vituperation.

I only asked him to tell me which religion is the most violent today within certain reasonable parameters. Please tell me specifically how my question, as I presented it, is loaded. I assert that it is not loaded to give criteria such as that the events should be recent, intend bodily harm, and actually be motivated by the religion in question.

0 Replies

Is there any religion that is without blood stained hands?

When the politicians need support for their excesses, who delivers the warriors?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I only asked him to tell me which religion is the most violent today within certain reasonable parameters. Please tell me specifically how my question, as I presented it, is loaded. I assert that it is not loaded to give criteria such as that the events should be recent, intend bodily harm, and actually be motivated by the religion in question.

That is a loaded question because it assumes at the outset that hatred of Muslims is justified on such a basis. Many people in this thread have repeatedly made the point that the totality of neither the Arabs nor all Muslims are responsible for the murderous actions of fanatics. You are attempting to frame the issue in terms of your obsessive fear and hatred of Muslim extremists. This thread is about racist hatred of Arabs and other Muslims based upon a contention that all Muslims are murderous fanatics. You've simply attempted to put a rational veneer on the proposition.

0 Replies

The Anti-Muslim predjudice on A2K is wrong.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know