How can you be anti homophobia and anti islamophobia at the sametime ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Islam/Muslims promote homophobia and support the death penalty for homosexuals/gays Im not saying Judaism/Christianity are any better on this issue but how come many liberals/left wingers/socialists will attack Judaism/Christianity for homophobia but never attack Islam for homophobia please watch these two videos below to see Muslim homophobia in New York City.

Islamic Demonstration Against NYC Gay Parade 2008(1of2)

Uploaded by islamicthinkers (http://www.youtube.com/user/islamicthinkers) on Jul 3, 2009
Islamic Thinkers Society Demonstrating against the NYC Gay parade in 2008. May Allah s.w.t. the Creator be a witness over our deeds as we tried to forbid this evil with our tongues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3U2geSGG1s&list=UUMBe5EAyqBrGpUIKni5kkYw&index=8&feature=plcp

Islamic Demonstration Against NYC Gay Parade 2008(2of2)

Uploaded by islamicthinkers (http://www.youtube.com/user/islamicthinkers) on Jul 3, 2009
Islamic Thinkers Society Demonstrating against the NYC Gay parade in 2008. May Allah s.w.t. the Creator be a witness over our deeds as we tried to forbid this evil with our tongues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V04zQQk01RU&feature=related

Islamic Thinkers Society Official Channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/islamicthinkers

[Saviorself]

Probably because attacking Islam, for any reason, is considered Islamophobia. And if you try and defend this logical position, you will only be dismissed as a bigot who is trying to disguise their bigotry.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Being anti-Islamophobic does not mean condoning the reactionary religious beliefs of the minority you are defending.It simply means not discriminating against those who are,in the U.S and Europe, being scapegoated.So yes, one can be "pro-gay" while also being anti-Islamophobic.

Revolutionaries fight against all injustices.

[Ostrinski]

Islamophobia is distinct from simply criticizing Islam in that Islamophobia entails judgments upon muslims as people whereas if we engage simply in critical analysis we look at the religion and its relationship to society historically.

[Saviorself]

Revolutionaries fight against all injustices.

So...you will defend their right to be homophobic whilst, at the same time, being against their homophobia?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So...you will defend their right to be homophobic whilst, at the same time, being against their homophobia?

No one has the "right" to be homophobic (though this is perhaps a different discussion).

I think you are confusing the terms and conflating other treatments with incorrect definitions.

Islamophobia is the hatred of Muslims.

Homophobia is the hatred of homosexuals

One can reject hating Muslims while accepting homosexuality. Rights and privilege does not come into the equation.

[NewLeft]

Why is it that it's always Islam that is against homosexuality, but when a Christian group attacks homosexuality it's only that particular group?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Why is it that it's always Islam that is against homosexuality, but when a Christian group attacks homosexuality it's only that particular group?

Because in America, and many parts of the world,Christians make up the majority and decide what will be repeated in the media.Because of this they have the power to make the bigotries the two religions share seem like one has more hate than the other when they are both one in the same.

[Saviorself]

No one has the "right" to be homophobic (though this is perhaps a different discussion).

But you would say they have a right to their religion, correct? If so, it would stand to reason that they also have a "right" to be homophobic because homophobia is a part of their religion. This would include Christianity as well because homophobia is also a part of that religion. And if this is true, does that mean homophobia is "acceptable" when it stems from religious conviction? Isn't homophobia bad regardless of where such feelings find their origin?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But you would say they have a right to their religion, correct? If so, it would stand to reason that they also have a "right" to be homophobic because homophobia is a part of their religion. This would include Christianity as well because homophobia is also a part of that religion. And if this is true, does that mean homophobia is "acceptable" when it stems from religious conviction? Isn't homophobia bad regardless of where such feelings find their origin?

One has the "right" to religion but it doesn't explictly mean that homophobia is part of that religions code of conduct (since if it was inevitable than every sect of every religion would be homophobic when there are pro-queer sects).

Anyway, this is a discussion for someone else as it is sliding into rights and theology.

[Saviorself]

One has the "right" to religion but it doesn't explictly mean that homophobia is part of that religions code of conduct

Well, if there were ever a "code of conduct" for a given religion, it would be their respective holy text. You can find condemnation/hatred of homosexuality (homophobia) in the aforementioned texts. And though there may be "pro-queer sects", they are certainly the minority and thus the exception, not the rule.

So, to be supportive of the religion (even if only in the sense that one is supportive of their right to practice their religion) is, by proxy, to be supportive of homophobia.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Probably because attacking Islam, for any reason, is considered Islamophobia. And if you try and defend this logical position, you will only be dismissed as a bigot who is trying to disguise their bigotry.

Unfortunatly, logical anti-Islamism is now often seen as Islamophobia, especially on the Left and Revolutionary Left. This is kind of because real bigots, like the people who actually hate and even attack Muslims, have shown that Islamophobia is something terrible, and thus people have felt the need to include logical and civil, yet unapologetic, critique of Islam under the umbrella term of Islamophobia. I do not like Islam, but that does not mean I am a bigot. I do not like any other religions either! Yet my dislike of religion is based on actual knowledge and does not extend to me personally showing hatred towards all religious people. People, particularly on RevLeft, need to stop calling people who are brave enough to show the downfalls of Islam Islamophobic.

[Saviorself]

I do not like Islam, but that does not mean I am a bigot. I do not like any other religions either! Yet my dislike of religion is based on actual knowledge and does not extend to me personally showing hatred towards all religious people. People, particularly on RevLeft, need to stop calling people who are brave enough to show the downfalls of Islam Islamophobic.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :cool:

[LOLseph Stalin]

What a dumb thread. I know of plenty of muslims who don't give a shit what one does in the bedroom.

[MarxSchmarx]

As other posters have said, islamophobia isn't about disagreeing with Islamic teachings. It's about singling out Islam among all the other reactionary religious nonsense and targeting it for scorn. One has to resort to mischaracterizing islamophobia as disagreement with Islam to create an illusion of a contradiction here.

[gorillafuck]

because Islamophobia and disagreeing with Islam are obviously two different things.

[Saviorself]

What a dumb thread. I know of plenty of muslims who don't give a shit what one does in the bedroom.

And for every one that doesn't, there is at least one that does. This is valid thread, you are simply incapable (as most theists are) of accepting criticism of your own religion.

[gorillafuck]

the reason there is conflict between anti-racists and anti-theists is because, while a lot of anti-theists claim to be against all religions therefore it can't be racist to be against Islam, endorse Islamophobic things such as burqa bans, on the grounds of being against all religion.

[LOLseph Stalin]

And for every one that doesn't, there is at least one that does. This is valid thread, you are simply incapable (as most theists are) of accepting criticism of your own religion.

No, that's not why I'm annoyed(in fact I'm constantly criticized for my views, but don't really give a shit). I'm annoyed because people need to just accept that some people are religious. Faith works for some people so who cares?

It seems leftists are accepting of pretty much everything except for religious differences. :rolleyes:

[Saviorself]

while a lot of anti-theists claim to be against all religions therefore it can't be racist to be against Islam

It can't be racist to be against Islam (technically, Muslims) because Islam (technically, Muslim) is not a racial identity it is a religious ideology.


I'm annoyed because people need to just accept that some people are religious. Faith works for some people so who cares?

Accepting that a person is religious is not the same as tolerating every single belief they hold. I can accept that a person holds religious belief in that I can't force them to change their belief but as sure as shit don't have to like or respect what they believe. Yes, faith works for some people, but not everyone. I care because religion, as an institution, often attempts to force everyone to live by their standards.

[gorillafuck]

It can't be racist to be against Islam (technically, Muslims) because Islam (technically, Muslim) is not a racial identity it is a religious ideology.except the media has waged intense propaganda against Islam as a part of Arabic cultural identity.

[Saviorself]

except the media has waged intense propaganda against Islam as a part of Arabic cultural identity.

The media says a lot of stuff I don't agree with. That doesn't invalidate my point. And I see that you edited your post to remove the comment about me "dodging" the rest of your post, which is good because I wasn't dodging anything, I was referring to the portion of your post that I found relevant.

[gorillafuck]

The media says a lot of stuff I don't agree with. That doesn't invalidate my point. And I see that you edited your post to remove the comment about me "dodging" the rest of your post, which is good because I wasn't dodging anything, I was referring to the portion of your post that I found relevant.oh haha you're gonna point that out. the ol' call out.

well you did. I removed that so I didn't seem like a jerk. not because you outsmarted me or some shit:laugh:

the whole post is relevant. respond to it all now actually.

[Saviorself]

oh haha you're gonna point that out. well you obviously did. I removed that so I didn't seem like a jerk. not because you outsmarted me or some shit

Yes, I am going to point that out. And did you really remove it so you wouldn't "seem like a jerk" or because you realized it was a rejoinder without veracity? Because I don't see how it would have made you look like a jerk. Nor did I claim to have outsmarted you. Though your response was rather fruitless because the point you addressed it to still remains valid.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, I am going to point that out. And did you really remove it so you wouldn't "seem like a jerk" or because you realized it was a rejoinder without veracity? Because I don't see how it would have made you look like a jerk. Nor did I claim to have outsmarted you. Though your response was rather fruitless because the point you addressed it to still remains valid.woah did everybody see what just happened here?

[gorillafuck]

the reason there is conflict between anti-racists and anti-theists is because, while a lot of anti-theists claim to be against all religions therefore it can't be racist to be against Islam, endorse Islamophobic things such as burqa bans, on the grounds of being against all religion.to which saviorself responded that the media does a lot of things he doesn't agree with. apparently, that makes the effect of the media on Islam and race not relevant to his point, despite the fact that the media has effected Islam and it's correlation to arabic identity into a certain way regardless of whether or not he agrees with it.

[Saviorself]

to which saviorself responded that the media does a lot of things he doesn't agree with. apparently, that makes the effect of the media on Islam and race void.

LMAO! There's a slight problem of continuity here.


the reason there is conflict between anti-racists and anti-theists is because, while a lot of anti-theists claim to be against all religions therefore it can't be racist to be against Islam, endorse Islamophobic things such as burqa bans, on the grounds of being against all religion.


It can't be racist to be against Islam (technically, Muslims) because Islam (technically, Muslim) is not a racial identity it is a religious ideology.


except the media has waged intense propaganda against Islam as a part of Arabic cultural identity.


The media says a lot of stuff I don't agree with. That doesn't invalidate my point. And I see that you edited your post to remove the comment about me "dodging" the rest of your post, which is good because I wasn't dodging anything, I was referring to the portion of your post that I found relevant.

You missed a few posts there, buddy. Was that an honest mistake or are you being intentionally dishonest? Just because the media tries to claim that Muslim is a race (as you claim they do) does not mean that they are correct in doing so.

[gorillafuck]

LMAO! There's a slight problem of continuity here.did you actually laugh?


You missed a few posts there, buddy. Was that an honest mistake or are you being intentionally dishonest? Just because the media tries to claim that Muslim is a race (as you claim they do) does not mean that they are correct in doing so.whatever I am doing is apparently an honest mistake because no I don't know what you're talking about.

but still you're doing it. you're saying that because Islam isn't a race, then Islamophobia is not racist, even though Islamophobia is directed at Islam as a part of Arabic cultural identity.

and you're saying that because you don't agree with media attacks on Islam as a part of arab cultural identity, then that makes this irrelevant.

which isn't true.

[Saviorself]

did you actually laugh?

Yes, I did. I laugh a lot when reading this site for a variety of different reasons.


whatever I am doing is apparently an honest mistake because no I don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, I guess I will spoon-feed it to you: You attributed a response of mine to a post of yours other than the one it was ACTUALLY responding to.


but still you're doing it. you're saying that because Islam isn't a race, then Islamophobia is not racist, even though Islamophobic policy is directed at Islam as a part of Arabic cultural identity.

Because it isn't racist. It is certainly bigotry, but not racism. That's like saying homophobia is racist. Homosexuality is not a race therefore homophobia is not racist. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Yes, some people might make the false association that Arab=Muslim but it is, as I just stated, a false association.


and you're saying that because you don't agree with media attacks on Islam as a part of arab cultural identity, then that makes this irrelevant.

Wrong again. What I said was, just because the media tries to claim that "Arab = Muslim" does not mean that it is true. Nor does it mean that Muslim is a race. Again, Muslim is a religious designation and there are Muslims of varying races.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, I did. I laugh a lot when reading this site for a variety of different reasons.

Okay, I guess I will spoon-feed it to you: You attributed a response of mine to a post of yours other than the one it was ACTUALLY responding to.show me. spoon feed me I need food.


Because it isn't racist. It is certainly bigotry, but not racism. That's like saying homophobia is racist. Homosexuality is not a race therefore homophobia is not racist. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Yes, some people might make the false association that Arab=Muslim but it is, as I just stated, a false association.it is not that they are equivalent. it is that they are heavily associated to a point where attacks on one, Islam, are used as attacks on another, Arabs. Islamophobia isn't just disagreeing with Islam. it is propagating against specifically Islam in the context of an imperialist propaganda campaign against Arabs. which is why things like Burqa bans in the western world are racist, even though someone can wear a burqa if they're not an Arab Muslim.


Wrong again. What I said was, just because the media tries to claim that "Arab = Muslim" does not mean that it is true. Nor does it mean that Muslim is a race. Again, Muslim is a religious designation and there are Muslims of varying races.for the purpose of not ignoring any part of this I guess I'll say that I think what I wrote above covers this.

[Saviorself]

show me.

I already did. See post #26 and post #27. If you can't figure it out from there, I can do nothing else to help you understand.


it is not that they are equivalent.

Exactly, they are not equivalent. I am glad you finally understand that.


it is that they are heavily associated to a point where attacks on one, Islam, are used as attacks on another, Arabs.

That still doesn't make Muslims a race of people. Religious identity does not equal racial identity.


Islamophobia isn't just disagreeing with Islam.

And I never argued that Islamophobia is just disagreeing with Islam. In fact, I have already made it extremely clear in the beginning of this thread that disagreement with Islam is not the same as being Islamophobic, regardless of how many people try to claim they are one in the same.


it is propagating against specifically Islam in the context of an imperialist propaganda campaign against Arabs.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Yes, there are people who are racist against Arabs and some people might make the (again, false) association that Arab = Muslim but racists aren't generally known for being the brightest individuals.


which is why things like Burqa bans in the western world are racist, even though someone can wear a burqa if they're not an Arab Muslim.

If anyone can wear a burqa, regardless of race or religion, then how is the ban on burqas "racist"? Wouldn't "fashionist" be a more appropriate terminology? :laugh:


for the purpose of not ignoring any part of this I guess I'll say that I think what I wrote above covers this.

You can think whatever you want. That doesn't mean what you think is correct. Hell, at one time people thought the Earth was flat.

[gorillafuck]

I already did. See post #26 and post #27. If you can't figure it out from there, I can do nothing else to help you understand.oh, I quoted the wrong quote and accidently quoted myself. whoops haha.


Exactly, they are not equivalent. I am glad you finally understand that. I never suggested otherwise. that doesn't contradict that Islamophobia is related to racism in the west.


That still doesn't make Muslims a race of people. Religious identity does not equal racial identity.do you not understand the correlation?


And I never argued that Islamophobia is just disagreeing with Islam. In fact, I have already made it extremely clear in the beginning of this thread that disagreement with Islam is not the same as being Islamophobic, regardless of how many people try to claim they are one in the same.


I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Yes, there are people who are racist against Arabs and some people might make the (again, false) association that Arab = Muslim but racists aren't generally known for being the brightest individuals.I can't believe this is going over your head. association does not mean equal. Islamophobia is a tool of racism due to associations. not because islam and arab are equal.


If anyone can wear a burqa, regardless of race or religion, then how is the ban on burqas "racist"? Wouldn't "fashionist" be a more appropriate terminology? :laugh:tensions are rising between foreign muslims and wider French society and there was a burqa ban there. and you actually are going to say that that is not an obvious attack on the culture of ethnic minorities? that's like if racial tensions between whites and blacks rose in the US and hip hop was banned, and someone said "it's not racist anyone can play hip hop" even though it is a blatant attack on culture.


You can think whatever you want. That doesn't mean what you think is correct. Hell, at one time people thought the Earth was flat.lol.

[Saviorself]

oh, I quoted the wrong quote and accidently quoted myself. whoops haha.

Thank you for at least having the integrity to admit your mistake.


I never suggested otherwise. that doesn't contradict that Islamophobia is related to racism in the west.

Islamophobia is related to racism but the two are not the same thing.


I can't believe this is going over your head. association does not mean equal.

No, it is not going over my head. That association does not mean equal is exactly what I have been saying the whole time you and I have been at this.


tensions are rising between muslims and wider French society and there was a burqa ban. and you actually are going to say that that is not an obvious attack on the culture of ethnic minorities?

My understanding of the situation is that the ban on burqas is an attack on the misogyny of Islam. I don't agree with the ban, people should be able to wear what they want.


that's like if racial tensions rose in the US and hip hop was banned, and someone said "it's not racist anyone can play hip hop" even though it is a blatant attack on culture.

"Hip-hop culture", by and large is not something I support. At least as far as the glorification of misogyny and gang mentality is concerned. I wouldn't support a ban on hip-hop either.

[#FF0000]

i don't think people who are gay should be singled out and othered.

i don't think people who are muslim should be singled out and othered.

it's p. easy tbh

[gorillafuck]

Thank you for at least having the integrity to admit your mistake.well it's not like I'm ashamed...



Islamophobia is related to racism but the two are not the same thing.yeah, they're not the same. but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who specifically hates Islam above other religions who is not a racist in western society. and considering that Islamophobia is pretty much a tool of racism, it's safe to say Islamophobia is racist.


No, it is not going over my head. That association does not mean equal is exactly what I have been saying the whole time you and I have been at this.you've been saying islamophobia isn't racist because Muslims and Arabs aren't equivalent. I have explained why it is basically racism despite that they are not equivalent.


My understanding of the situation is that the ban on burqas is an attack on the misogyny of Islam. I don't agree with the ban, people should be able to wear what they want.and the misogyny of the Taliban was used to get feminists to support the invasion of Afghanistan. do you really buy that when anti-immigrant sentiment is at a high, the French govt suddenly thinks that burqas should be banned to curb sexism in society, and have it be completely unrelated to views on immigrants?

it is obviously part of an anti-immigrant campaign if you actually look at the context for about 2 seconds regardless of what excuses were made. don't so easily believe what the government tells ya.


"Hip-hop culture", by and large is not something I support. At least as far as the glorification of misogyny and gang mentality is concerned. I wouldn't support a ban on hip-hop either.but you do acknowledge that a ban on hip hop in my presented scenario would be an obvious case of racism?

[Saviorself]

well it's not like I'm ashamed...

It's nothing to be ashamed about as long as it was a honest mistake.


yeah, they're not the same. but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who specifically hates Islam above other religions who is not a racist in western society.

Maybe, maybe not. There is no real way to prove this either way so it is a moot point.


and considering that Islamophobia is pretty much a tool of racism, it's safe to say Islamophobia is racist.

Agree to disagree.


you've been saying islamophobia isn't racist because Muslims and Arabs aren't equivalent. I have explained why it is basically racism despite that they are not equivalent.

No, I have been saying that Muslim isn't a race. And it isn't. Nor are Muslims and Arabs necessarily the same thing. Yes, some Muslims are Arab. There are also Muslims of other races.


and the misogyny of the Taliban was used to get feminists to support the invasion of Afghanistan.

I think the invasion of Afghanistan was pretty much solidified due to the events of 9/11. I don't think much more support was needed than that.


do you really buy that when anti-immigrant sentiment is at a high, the French govt suddenly thinks that burqas should be banned to curb sexism in society, and have it be completely unrelated to views on immigrants?

Correlation does not imply causation. And though it might not be completely unrelated, that does not mean it is completely related either.


but you do acknowledge that a ban on hip hop in my presented scenario would be an obvious case of racism?

I couldn't make a judgement on that either way unless the scenario were to actually occur.

[Blake's Baby]

Apparently I was replying to something that now has pages of other stuff after it. Carry on, nothing to see here.

[Blake's Baby]

And for every one that doesn't, there is at least one that does...

And your source for this claim is?

Please provide numbers of muslims who are:
1-tolerant of homosexuality;
2-intolerant of homosexuality.

[dodger]

ISLAMOPHOBIA.........Here are some boys and gals....got it bad....let them speak for themselves.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cts=1331469326357&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ex-muslim.org.uk%2F&ei=p5tcT7f0JqmuiAfDtom2DQ&usg=AFQjCNHbyw_3bQgan8bWOj9RtgmqQiKo1Q

[Jimmie Higgins]

I also support attempts by Coptic Christians to defend themselves from bigotry in Egypt, does that mean I can't also criticize the Catholic Church's involvement in promoting anti-gay laws? If I protest the Catholic Church's anti-gay laws in California, does that mean I also can't support the fight of Catholics in Northern Ireland against anti-catholic bigotry and violence there?

I'm against Israeli Zionist policies, so are many neo-nazis, if I protest an antisemitic rally does that mean I have to support Zionism since large sections of Jewish religious organizations actively support Zionism?

The whole premise of this question is completely absurd. We support the fight of the oppressed against their oppression. Christians who are oppressing LGBT folks shouldn't be fought on the grounds of their Christianity, but on the basis of the bigoted actions or legislation the church leaders might be supporting. When white supremacists say that God meant for blacks to be inferior and then create Christian Identity groups or Pegan White Power groups, is the issue their religious belief, would you say we are persecuting Christianity for protesting their racism since they wrap their bigotry in theology?

[#FF0000]

hey guys how can you be anti-homophobia but anti racist because i know black people who are against gay right sgugbgubgugbugbugbugbugbgu

[Small Geezer]

The Qur'an and the Hadiths are crystal clear in their prohibition of homosexuality. Islam is against homosexuality.

Do we defend peoples rights to their beliefs? I think we should agree to disagree with Muslims on aspects of their religion we are opposed to without condemning their religion as a whole.

[Blake's Baby]

The Bible is clear in its homophobia too. Not as frequently as it is on its mysogyny, but clear enough.

Do we defend people's rights to their beliefs? No, not really...

Do we defend people's rights not to be persecuted over their race when the persecutors are pretending it's about 'culture'? Yeah...

Islam may be a crappy religion. Christianity may be a crappy religion. Judaism may be a crappy religion. I can't think of any religion that isn't made-up bullshit about someone's imaginary friend.

Is the existence of these stories a good enough reason to persecute people? No. It's not a good enough reason for religious idiots to persecute 'the unclean' and it's not a good reason for persecuting the deluded people who believe it either. Especially when that anti-religious (specifically, in the West, anti-Islamic) stance is often (I won't claim always but often) a cover for anti-immigrant or anti-Arab or anti-Pakistani (anti-Bengali, anti-Somali, anti-Turkish, insert culturally-appropriate muslim bogeymen here) bigotry.

[#FF0000]

The Qur'an and the Hadiths are crystal clear in their prohibition of homosexuality. Islam is against homosexuality

yo i have said it before and i will say it again

religious books in 2012 don't mean shit to anyone including the people who believe in them

people cherrypick and bend religion to fit their worldview as much as they form their worldview around religion.

i know muslims who don't give a shit about homosexuality. i know gay catholics.

the scriptures don't mean shit, dogg

[Red Rabbit]

I know plenty of Muslims, Jews and Christians who are homosexual and very open about it. I also know plenty of Atheists who are completely homophobic.

I know people who are both homophobic and Islamophobic, same as I know people that are against both. I know homosexuals that are also skin-heads. I know anti-facists that are also homophobic.

This world isn't completely black and white.

[Os Cangaceiros]

For one, isn't a "phobia" an irrational fear of something? Why can't you be opposed to both an irrational fear of homosexuals and an irrational fear of Muslims?

Also, political Islam should be opposed whenever it rears it's head, for example (http://hidupbiasa.blogspot.com/2012/02/for-indonesia-without-fpi.html). However that's not really a problem in the USA or Europe, where Muslims are often the victims of bigotry. I don't see any reason why opposing bigotry based on one's sexual orientation alone is somehow incompatibale with being opposed to bigotry based on one's religion alone, in this case Islam. As other people in this thread have mentioned.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I do not like Islam, but that does not mean I am a bigot.

sorry man but if you are a 21st century westerner who "does not like islam" you are a bigot

[Franz Fanonipants]

p.s. it owns that savoirself who called folks faggots is posting in this thread

[hatzel]

p.s. it owns that savoirself who called folks faggots is posting in this thread

"I don't know how to be anti-homophobia and anti-Islamophobia at the same time so I just decided to be homophobic and Islamophobic. It's much easier that way."

(ps not a real quote I made it up teehee)

[Saviorself]

My disdain for Islam comes from a working knowledge of the utter shit that religion espouses. "Islamophobia" implies an irrational fear/hatred of Muslims. I'm not even going to get into the homophobia thing because I have already made my case and you people are too fucking stupid to get it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I actually know an atheist who is a hardcore homophobe. He's also a transphobe and a racist(he called asians swine and continues to stereotype arabs as terrorist savages). I also know there's openly gay muslims so yea, one's religious belief or disbelief really doesn't play a huge role in how they perceive other people.

[Saviorself]

one's religious belief or disbelief really doesn't play a huge role in how they perceive other people.

Yeah, because it's not like groups like the Westboro Baptist Church wholly let their religious belief define how they perceive other people.:rolleyes:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yeah, because it's not like groups like the Westboro Baptist Church wholly let their religious belief define how they perceive other people.:rolleyes:

That is only one fringe group within Christianity so that really doesn't prove much. I know of CHristians who think Westboro is just a bunch of attention seeking nutcases.

[Saviorself]

That is only one fringe group within Christianity so that really doesn't prove much

It is only one of MANY. And it disproves your assertion that one's religious belief doesn't play a huge role in how they perceive other people.


I know of CHristians who think Westboro is just a bunch of attention seeking nutcases.

And I know of Christians who are entirely distrusting and fearful of anyone who does not share their beliefs. Furthermore, if religious belief didn't play a huge role in how people perceive each other, then how come EVERY US Presidential candidate feels the need to pander to the religious? The day when overtly atheist people (among other minorities) are not treated like pariahs by the religious community, your argument will hold water. But not a day sooner.

[marl]

It can't be racist to be against Islam (technically, Muslims) because Islam (technically, Muslim) is not a racial identity it is a religious ideology.

Many believe in a form of 'Pan-Islamism', a unity of Muslims.

Otherwise, yeah.

[Guy Incognito]

That is only one fringe group within Christianity so that really doesn't prove much. I know of CHristians who think Westboro is just a bunch of attention seeking nutcases.

Don't bother trying to reason with him man. This is the same guy who said that because a small fraction of nutcases commit terror acts in the name of Islam, all muslims support terrorism. The logic center just isn't there.

[Prostitute]

Save urself i am a muslim prostitute and i am not a terrorist ok thank u

[Saviorself]

This is the same guy who said that because a small fraction of nutcases commit terror acts in the name of Islam, all muslims support terrorism.

No. What I said was, by aligning themselves with a religion that openly calls for attacks against non-believers, they are supporting these attacks. And where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them? Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it.

You can be a moron and deny it all you want but facts will remain facts regardless of how much you desire to remain blind to them.

[Guy Incognito]

No. What I said was, by aligning themselves with a religion that openly calls for attacks against non-believers, they are supporting these attacks. And where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them? Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it.

You can be a moron and deny it all you want but facts will remain facts regardless of how much you desire to remain blind to them.

See? Total disconnect.

[Franz Fanonipants]

a new, fact-based approach to hating muslims - courtesy a teenage anarchist

[Saviorself]

See? Total disconnect.

Claiming that I am suffering a "total disconnect" does not a valid argument make.

Either address the points I made, or don't bother with responding.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Claiming that I am suffering a "total disconnect" does not a valid argument make.

Either address the points I made, or don't bother with responding.

when shari'ah law is installed you will be banned from the internet and that will own

pls bring about shari'ah law quicker

[hatzel]

This is the same guy who said that because a small fraction of nutcases commit terror acts in the name of Islam, all muslims support terrorism.


No. What I said was, by aligning themselves with a religion that openly calls for attacks against non-believers, they are supporting these attacks.

FYI saying 'my opinion isn't X, but Y' is kinda silly when X=Y. I mean seriously you just repeated the accusation (with an ever so slight change of wording) after the word 'no.' Why is 'no' there? Why not 'yes?' Because that would make much more sense, given what comes after it...

[#FF0000]

And where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them? Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it.

So being a Muslims means you support terrorists by default? Why should they have to go out of their way to condemn them anymore than anyone else? And where exactly would you hear this anyway? Do you want all muslims to elect a PR representative to go on TV every once in awhile to remind everyone that not everyone wants to blow up everything?

And besides, muslims do condemn these things. The folks over in Indonesia who went torch-and-pitchfork on a mosque run by fundamentalists jumps to mind, and I'm certain you never heard of that.

What a stupid fucking thing to say, dude. Do you realize you're caught up in a 21st century version of the bullshit Irish Catholics and Jews in America went through in the past?

[pluckedflowers]

where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them?

You mean like these (http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php)?


Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it.

That's because you are an ignorant dipshit who gets his ideas spoonfed to him by other ignorant dipshits and who has no interest in facts that don't fit those ideas.

[Blake's Baby]

No. What I said was, by aligning themselves with a religion that openly calls for attacks against non-believers, they are supporting these attacks...

'A religion', in the way that Christianity says that you cast out the unclean from you, or jesus said that he brought not peace but the sword, you mean? All religions have stupid shit in them.


...And where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them? Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it...

Is that a fucking surprise? You live in Oregon. Which is not only part of the USA (a country where the press is so 'free' you are unable to get any difference of opinion from them beyond supporting different brands of cola) but is also one of the more ethnically-homogenous states. Maybe you should move somewhere that muslims actually live and you might hear them. But you still might not hear 'about' them because it's not in the interests of the media to report that, actually, most muslims are just like most other people, and not terrorists, murderers or sociopaths.


...You can be a moron and deny it all you want but facts will remain facts regardless of how much you desire to remain blind to them.

Yes, that's both true, and ironic.

[Saviorself]

FYI saying 'my opinion isn't X, but Y' is kinda silly when X=Y. I mean seriously you just repeated the accusation (with an ever so slight change of wording) after the word 'no.' Why is 'no' there? Why not 'yes?' Because that would make much more sense, given what comes after it...

You said that I claimed all Muslims support terrorism because a small fraction of fundamentalists engage in it. Which is not the case. What I actually said was, all Muslims support terrorism by aligning themselves in a religion that demands such acts be carried out. Just as much as all Christians support the execution of homosexuals because they align themselves with a religion that demands such acts be carried out. Regardless of how the individual believer may feel, they still identify with a religion that supports this shit.


That's because you are an ignorant dipshit who gets his ideas spoonfed to him by other ignorant dipshits and who has no interest in facts that don't fit those ideas.

No, you stupid asshole, it's because I had never seen nor heard of it before. And now I have. So I stand corrected.


'A religion', in the way that Christianity says that you cast out the unclean from you, or jesus said that he brought not peace but the sword, you mean? All religions have stupid shit in them.

Yeah and I am against Christianity too. And indeed all other religions. Some just happen to have a more abhorrent doctrine than others.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Is this that complicated? Communists support religious freedom while educating people on the bankruptcy of religion. And has it escaped some of the comrades that muslims are facing terrible persecution in the US and Europe because they are foreign and different? We need to fight this, not say, well they are fucking homophobes, let the government jail them. Leninist = Tribune of the People = defending the most vulnerable. At this time that would include Muslims.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No. What I said was, by aligning themselves with a religion that openly calls for attacks against non-believers, they are supporting these attacks. And where are all the Muslims clamoring for an end to these attacks or even condemning the ones who commit them? Because I sure as hell don't see it or hear about it.Everytime I meet someone who is christian I demand that they condemn the slave trade and conquest of the Americas done under Papal sanction.

Catholics should also be made accountable for generations of eating flesh and drinking blood every Sunday.:rolleyes:


You can be a moron and deny it all you want but facts will remain facts regardless of how much you desire to remain blind to them.You have no facts, you have racist myths and pentagon propaganda. Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world and just like the other major religions, the religion has been used in all sorts of ways: for liberation, reaction, as well as to promote the ideology of whatever ruling class is in power at that time. Islam is not homogenous and religious texts are ALWAYS interpreted and reinterpreted for the use of whoever is reading it.

One of your fundamental misunderstandings is the idea that religions exist outside of material society when religion always is a reflection of society and therefore the fundamental features of any religion at any time come not from the texts, but from the social context. Southern US Protestant Christianity for example was used to both justify Jim-crow as the natural order of society but also to attack Jim-crow and racism by other people who have the same text, the same religious worldview, etc. During slavery, slave-owners used Christianity to justify slavery while abolitionists used Christianity to build their moral case against slavery.

So religious ideology isn't fixed and it isn't seperate from the social forces in society, it always adapts and is often just a tool for rulers to get people to behave in ways they want them to: "work this field while I drink mead and then I'll take 1/3 of your crops and once a fortnight I will have your sons shoo stray cats away from the geese I like to look at after counting my Indulgences... why you ask? Because it's God's will... and since you asked you will be flogged".

Your other fatal misunderstanding is that you think racist and false-propaganda used by powerful people to dupe regular people into accepting or supporting US imperial aims or European anti-immigrant measures, are "facts".

[pluckedflowers]

No, you stupid asshole, it's because I had never seen nor heard of it before. And now I have. So I stand corrected.


If you're going to spout off about Islam and Muslims, you ought to at the very least be capable of googling, say, "Muslims condemning terrorism." But since you obviously didn't bother to do that, I'm going to stick with my "ignorant dipshit" hypothesis.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you're going to spout off about Islam and Muslims, you ought to at the very least be capable of googling, say, "Muslims condemning terrorism." But since you obviously didn't bother to do that, I'm going to stick with my "ignorant dipshit" hypothesis.Why should muslims condemn terrorism on behalf of Muslims anyway? Should all white people have to constantly apologize for Klan violence. It implies that the fault is with all Muslims.

To force a group to apologize for the actions of some unconnected segments of the population or accuse them of supporting or participating in those actions is scapegoating 101. It's like McCarthyism: we're going to call you a Soviet agent and enemy of the state until you name names and condemn everyone else - if you don't then you're just as good as guilty.

These kind of attacks are to silence, scare, and bully whole segments of the population.

[hatzel]

You said

Actually I didn't say anything. I quoted the guy who said you said all Muslims support terrorism, and that guy was somebody other than me, and then I quoted you saying no, all Muslims support terrorism. And to be honest if somebody comes along spouting a load of bigoted bullshit I'm not exactly going to stop to care how exactly they try to justify it and where said bullshit came from because that doesn't suddenly make it any less bigoted. I mean bullshit's bullshit as far as I'm concerned, I don't need to listen to the reasons. Meh.

[pluckedflowers]

Why should muslims condemn terrorism on behalf of Muslims anyway? Should all white people have to constantly apologize for Klan violence. It implies that the fault is with all Muslims.

To force a group to apologize for the actions of some unconnected segments of the population or accuse them of supporting or participating in those actions is scapegoating 101. It's like McCarthyism: we're going to call you a Soviet agent and enemy of the state until you name names and condemn everyone else - if you don't then you're just as good as guilty.

These kind of attacks are to silence, scare, and bully whole segments of the population.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out that the assholes who do demand such condemnations are doubly assholes since they clearly ignore the massive amount of condemnation that is a couple of clicks away.

[Saviorself]

Everytime I meet someone who is christian I demand that they condemn the slave trade and conquest of the Americas done under Papal sanction.

Is that stuff still going on? No, it isn't. Are there still acts of violence committed by Muslims due to their belief in Islam? Yes, there are.


You have no facts, you have racist myths and pentagon propaganda.

Islam is responsible for more religious motivated terrorist attacks than any other religion. Fact. The Koran calls for holy war against all non-believers until the whole of the planet is under Islamic rule. Fact.


Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world and just like the other major religions, the religion has been used in all sorts of ways: for liberation, reaction, as well as to promote the ideology of whatever ruling class is in power at that time. Islam is not homogenous and religious texts are ALWAYS interpreted and reinterpreted for the use of whoever is reading it.

Give me one instance where the rulers of an Islamic society have used their religion to try and foster an air of peace, tolerance and understanding.


. During slavery, slave-owners used Christianity to justify slavery while abolitionists used Christianity to build their moral case against slavery.

And only one of them was honest about what the Bible actually says about slavery. In case you haven't actually read it, the book is pro-slavery.


If you're going to spout off about Islam and Muslims, you ought to at the very least be capable of googling, say, "Muslims condemning terrorism." But since you obviously didn't bother to do that, I'm going to stick with my "ignorant dipshit" hypothesis.

Why align yourself with a religious belief that calls for actions that you do not agree with? The Koranic calls for Jihad are directly responsible for the Islamic terrorist attacks around the world. No one who is going to claim association with such a despicable religion is deserving of any respect.



Why should muslims condemn terrorism on behalf of Muslims anyway? Should all white people have to constantly apologize for Klan violence. It implies that the fault is with all Muslims

Well, since you brought it up; ever hear of something called "white guilt"? It's the belief that all white people should feel bad, and thus apologize for something that none of them were alive for or took any part in. Even to this day you have people who were never enslaved seeking reparations from people who never enslaved them. Which is pretty ridiculous.

Furthermore, not all white people are in the KKK so they have no reason to apologize for what they do. But all Islamic terrorists are Muslims, so, the "peaceful ones" like it are not will be lumped in with the rest because they share a common ideology.

What if I said "I am in the KKK - but I don't support segregation, persecution or lynching of black people"? Would you accept that proposition. Because, for the sake of consistency, you should.


I mean bullshit's bullshit as far as I'm concerned, I don't need listen to the reasons. Meh.

Because you are too blinded by pussified ultra-Left politics that you are incapable of accepting logical conclusions that would shatter your sheltered worldview.

[#FF0000]

Is that stuff still going on? No, it isn't. Are there still acts of violence committed by Muslims due to their belief in Islam? Yes, there are.

Actually most African warlords are or were christian altarboys.

And let's not forget all those christians in command of tomahawk missiles and entire armies who loot and pillage countries for natural resources.

But that's different of course lol


Islam is responsible for more religious motivated terrorist attacks than any other religion. Fact. The Koran calls for holy war against all non-believers until the whole of the planet is under Islamic rule. Fact.Source for the first, and false for the second.

What do you think of all the Muslims who, uh, don't care about other people not being muslim or who do condemn violence? Are they just ignorant of their own religion or are they lying, do you think?


Give me one instance where the rulers of an Islamic society have used their religion to try and foster an air of peace, tolerance and understanding. MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU JEST?

HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE JEWISH GOLDEN AGE?

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT HAPPENED?

IBERIAN PENINSULA YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. IN A CITY CALLED CORDOBA.

RUN BY MUSLIMS.

Seriously please never post again you are so fucking stupid and so ignorant of history it is unbelievable. I mean goddamn dude I'm not going to say that muslim societies have always been the most tolerant but throughout history people of different beliefs and nationalies have, in general (and this is a massive, dirty ol' generalization) been better off in 'muslim' lands than in Christian ones.

I mean jesus christ would you rather be a Jew in Christendom or in Muslim Spain? (if you picked christendom you are wrong, motherfucker)


Why align yourself with a religious belief that calls for actions that you do not agree with? The Koranic calls for Jihad are directly responsible for the Islamic terrorist attacks around the world. No one who is going to claim association with such a despicable religion is deserving of any respect. Except, somehow, islamic terrorism is a uniquely modern. And, somehow, the folks who follow the school of thought that makes bombing marketplaces an acceptable thing were in an absurd minority up until about the 50's.

And how do you explain the fact that like 40% of american muslims identify as pacifists and believe violence is 'never' justified?



Well, since you brought it up; ever hear of something called "white guilt"? It's the belief that all white people should feel bad, and thus apologize for something that none of them were alive for or took any part in. Even to this day you have people who were never enslaved seeking reparations from people who never enslaved them. Which is pretty ridiculous. yeah white guilt is some bullshit that people like to throw around whenever a white person says 'yo that is fucked up' in regard to some kind of racism or bigotry.


Furthermore, not all white people are in the KKK so they have no reason to apologize for what they do. But all Islamic terrorists are Muslims, so, the "peaceful ones" like it are not will be lumped in with the rest because they share a common ideology. All islamic terrorists are muslims.

You don't say.

And no, the peaceful ones don't share a common ideology -- hence them being 'the peaceful ones'.


What if I said "I am in the KKK - but I don't support segregation, persecution or lynching of black people"? Would you accept that proposition. Because, for the sake of consistency, you should. No, because the KKK is an explicitly racist organization. Islam, on the other hand, is a religion, which is a strange and nebulous beast that people interpret in a million different ways.


Because you are too blinded by pussified lol word?


ultra-Left politics that you are incapable of accepting logical conclusions that would shatter your sheltered worldview.i bet you've never met a muslim in your life so how are you gonna go and call anyone else 'sheltered' you dense motherfucker? And how are you going to talk to anyone about logic when you literally lump every muslim in with terrorists just because they follow the same religion? I mean, shit dude, did you know there were buddhist terrorists responsible for releasing nerve gas in japanese subways? What of Christian abortion clinic bombers? Are they all the same too?

and i don't know about anyone else dogg but I'm not 'blinded' by anything. i'm pissed that you're lumping my friends in with killers because you think they believe the same thing, somehow.

[#FF0000]

"Give me one instance where the rulers of an Islamic society have used their religion to try and foster an air of peace, tolerance and understanding."

ugh fucking christ dude what about the fuckin mughals

do you know the mughals?

do you know a fucking thing?

i am still reeling from this bullshit

[Saviorself]

Actually most African warlords are or were christian altarboys.

And let's not forget all those christians in command of tomahawk missiles and entire armies who loot and pillage countries for natural resources.

But that is not a modern day instance of "the slave trade and conquest of the Americas done under Papal sanction."


Source for the first, and false for the second

Source: compare the number of Islamic terrorist attacks to that of terrorist attacks motivated by other religions. And the second is not false. It is in the Koran. But I am willing to be you have never read it. So who is the ignorant one here?


What do you think of all the Muslims who, uh, don't care about other people not being muslim or who do condemn violence? Are they just ignorant of their own religion or are they lying, do you think?

Probably a bit of both.


THE JEWISH GOLDEN AGE?

Okay, there is one. But that has certainly come to an end. These days you have Muslims holding signs that say "God Bless Hitler". Which is more common than a sign that says "tolerance for all religions or lack thereof".


Except, somehow, islamic terrorism is a uniquely modern. And, somehow, the folks who follow the school of thought that makes bombing marketplaces an acceptable thing were in an absurd minority up until about the 50's.

Ever heard of a little period known as The Crusades? Yeah...Islam wanted to take over the globe then too...


yeah white guilt is some bullshit that people like to throw around whenever a white person says 'yo that is fucked up' in regard to some kind of racism or bigotry.

You people sure like to take things I say out of context. Especially when they weren't said to you or related to anything you have to say to begin with. I was answering a question posed by another person.


All islamic terrorists are muslims.

You don't say.

Hey, dumbfuck, why not read what it was actually in response to.


And no, the peaceful ones don't share a common ideology -- hence them being 'the peaceful ones'.

Yeah they do, it's called ISLAM. Moron.


i bet you've never met a muslim in your life so how are you gonna go and call anyone else 'sheltered' you dense motherfucker?

That is a bet you would lose.


I mean, shit dude, did you know there were buddhist terrorists responsible for releasing nerve gas in japanese subways? What of Christian abortion clinic bombers? Are they all the same too?

Yeah, when you align yourself with a religion that calls for such behavior, you are no better than the people who act out such behavior.

What if I said "I am in the KKK - but I don't support segregation, persecution or lynching of black people"? Would you accept that proposition. Because, for the sake of consistency, you should.


do you know a fucking thing?

I know that most modern Muslim societies are not about tolerance, peace and acceptance. Or would you say that places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan et al. are wonderful places that you would LOVE to live because Islamic rule has made them such awesome places?

[#FF0000]

But that is not a modern day instance of "the slave trade and conquest of the Americas done under Papal sanction."

Good thing I didn't say that then!



Source: compare the number of Islamic terrorist attacks to that of terrorist attacks motivated by other religionsSo do you have a source or not


And the second is not false. It is in the Koran. But I am willing to be you have never read it. So who is the ignorant one here?Yeah I have. I also know that what's in the Koran isn't the final word on what Muslims believe, and that Muslim belief hinges on interpretation which is the subject of tons of scholarship and debate within muslim circles. What this means is that it's entirely possible for two muslims to read the Koran and walk away from it with different conclusions.

It's the same with every religion, really -- but Islam is, I think, unique among abrahamic religions because debate/discussion has always sort of been a thing that was encouraged (obviously not by all circles).


Probably a bit of both.
Uh huh. Welp, while I think it's interesting that you think all the peaceful muslims around the world are that way because they just don't know Islam as well as you do, somehow, I think it's more interesting that you think that they also might just be lying.

So is every muslim suspect?


Okay, there is one. Among many, but yeah.


But that has certainly come to an end.But why? If hatred and intolerance is so integral to Islam, then how did relatively tolerant Islamic societies (tolerant especially compared to their contempary christian counterparts) ever come to exist in the first place?

And what changed?

If you're wondering, I want to point out that 'radical islam' as we know it today is an entirely modern, 20th century phenomenon. The thought modern 'radical islam' is based on has existed for a long-ass time, no doubt, buuuuuut that shit was never in the mainstream of Islamic thought.


These days you have Muslims holding signs that say "God Bless Hitler".And you have neo-nazi movements called "Christian Identity". Are all christians nazis now, too?


Ever heard of a little period known as The Crusades? Yeah...Islam wanted to take over the globe then too...
If you weren't a dumb motherfucker you'd point out the Arab conquests instead of a period of overt Christian aggression but alright.

And since we're on that topic I want to point out to you that the whole evangelist 'make everyone believe us' thing isn't an "islam" thing. It's an abrahamic thing, save for Judaism.

You people sure like to take things I say out of context. Especially when they weren't said to you or related to anything you have to say to begin with. I was answering a question posed by another person.


Yeah they do, it's called ISLAM. Moron.
Does sharing a religion means that you are the same as everyone else who also shares that religion?



That is a bet you would lose.
Nah I don't think it is actually hahaha


Yeah, when you align yourself with a religion that calls for such behavior, you are no better than the people who act out such behavior.But you see the Muslims who don't believe in the things that the terrorists believe would say that they don't align themselves with a religion that calls for such behavior, and they'd be pretty much right, because it is a religion, and religions are heavily based on interpretation.

So, like I said, are all buddhists no better than the folks that dumped sarin gas in Japanese subways or the monks that fought all over the streets of Seoul like the zen sharks and zen jets over some dumb political appointments?


I know that most modern Muslim societies are not about tolerance, peace and acceptance. Or would you say that places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan et al. are wonderful places that you would LOVE to live because Islamic rule has made them such awesome places?Hey your total ignorance of history is showing. These places (except Saudi Arabia) were pretty alright immediately after the British left, with secular democracies and all that shit (which were stable and popular despite these places being loaded with muslims -- I guess they just didn't 'get' it or were insincere in their support for it!).

It wasn't until the US and the UK started funding these fundamentalist organizations that they started taking hold. That's literally true in Afghanistan where they funded the Mujahideen against the secular Afghan government. In Iran, they overthrew the democratic government and replaced it with a secular monarch, who was then overthrown by an islamic revolution. By people who got loads of money from the West's best friends, the Saudis who have been throwing dosh at reactionary Islamists for as long as they've existed.

So yeah dogg, context.

And no one's saying modern islamic countries are great, either.

We're saying that not every muslim wants to make everyone muslim or kill them

I don't understand you though, guy. I don't understand how someone so ignorant can be so stuck in their dumb, ill-informed beliefs. I don't get how someone can stand in the dark and insist they can see everything so clearly.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Muslims are lying about being peaceful now? Damn, am I reading Revleft or Fox News? :confused:

[Saviorself]

Good thing I didn't say that then!

No, you didn't. The quote of mine you used was in response to someone who did say that.


So do you have a source or not

Here is a list of attacks from the last 30 days. (not including the thousands that took place before hand):

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks


I also know that what's in the Koran isn't the final word on what Muslims believe

It's the final word on what Islam, as a religion, espouses at truth.


And you have neo-nazi movements called "Christian Identity". Are all christians nazis now, too?

Again, taking things I said out of context in order to throw a red herring into the mix. Nice try.


If you weren't a dumb motherfucker you'd point out the Arab conquests instead of a period of overt Christian aggression but alright.

Arab conquests were a part of the Crusades. It wasn't just a Christian thing. You don't have to be a history major to know that.


And since we're on that topic I want to point out to you that the whole evangelist 'make everyone believe us' thing isn't an "islam" thing. It's an abrahamic thing, save for Judaism.

And Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths. So it is an Islamic thing.


Does sharing a religion means that you are the same as everyone else who also shares that religion?

It means their ideology is the same. Which is what we were talking about.


But you see the Muslims who don't believe in the things that the terrorists believe would say that they don't align themselves with a religion that calls for such behavior, and they'd be pretty much right, because it is a religion, and religions are heavily based on interpretation

Only a fool would believe a lot of that shit is just a matter of misinterpretation. It's pretty clear what is meant by the calls to violence against non-believers and the treatment of women and gays as second class citizens.


Nah I don't think it is actually hahaha

Well, despite what you think you are wrong. There are quite a bit of Muslims at my school and I even got into quite the heated debate with one in my philosophy of religion class when he tried to claim that Islam was not misogynistic.


And of course, it's not like everywhere in the 'Muslim world' fuckin sucks either. Parts of the Emirates fucking own. Egypt's alright. Lebanon's nice.

I'm not talking about aesthetics, I am talking about human rights.


I don't understand you though, guy. I don't understand how someone so ignorant can be so stuck in their dumb, ill-informed beliefs. I don't get how someone can stand in the dark and insist they can see everything so clearly.

I feel the same about you.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this motherfucker = masterful troll

[#FF0000]

It's the final word on what Islam, as a religion, espouses at truth.

Except that is entirely based on interpretation.


Again, taking things I said out of context in order to throw a red herring into the mix. Nice try.

No not really. Folks in the "Christian Identity" are Christians. Are all Christians bad people and potential Nazis because of that?


Arab conquests were a part of the Crusades. It wasn't just a Christian thing. You don't have to be a history major to know that.


HEH NOT EXACTLY BUT OKAY.


And Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths. So it is an Islamic thing.


Uhhh no because other religions have that too.


It means their ideology is the same. Which is what we were talking about.


No it doesn't. Their ideologies share a common source but they are not the same ideology.


Only a fool would believe a lot of that shit is just a matter of misinterpretation. It's pretty clear what is meant by the calls to violence against non-believers and the treatment of women and gays as second class citizens.


If it's so clear then why are there gay muslims and why do so many muslims identify as pacifist?


Well, despite what you think you are wrong. There are quite a bit of Muslims at my school and I even got into quite the heated debate with one in my philosophy of religion class when he tried to claim that Islam was not misogynistic.

Neat.


I'm not talking about aesthetics, I am talking about human rights.

Uhhh so am I but none of these places (except the emirates, I guess?) are theocracies. They're just countries that have some semblance of secular democracy WHILE SOMEHOW BEING FULL OF MUSLIMS HMMMMM.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't think the Emirates is theocratic actually. From my experience it is actually one of the more progressive middle eastern countries, but I could be wrong. It probably largely depends which region you're in too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out that the assholes who do demand such condemnations are doubly assholes since they clearly ignore the massive amount of condemnation that is a couple of clicks away.
Sorry, I wasn't arguing against what you said, just adding my point too your rebuttal. I was only attacking the logic of the original point, not yours which I totally agree with: a whole range of politics are expressed by different Muslim cultural and political organizations.

[pluckedflowers]

I don't think the Emirates is theocratic actually. From my experience it is actually one of the more progressive middle eastern countries, but I could be wrong. It probably largely depends which region you're in too.

Progressive in the sense of allowing rich foreigners to drink and shag in designated areas. Not so progressive in their repression of dissent, sponsoring of counter revolutionary activity, or their enserfment of immigrant labor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is that stuff still going on? No, it isn't. Are there still acts of violence committed by Muslims due to their belief in Islam? Yes, there are.

Ok, so should every Christian apologize for Abortion clinic bombings and doctor killings? Should we say, "the hell with bigotry against Northern Ireland's Catholics" since the Catholic church is also responsible for some reactionary views and the support of repressive regimes?

If not you are arguing that there is one standard for one group and another for other groups.


Furthermore, not all white people are in the KKK so they have no reason to apologize for what they do. But all Islamic terrorists are Muslims, so, the "peaceful ones" like it are not will be lumped in with the rest because they share a common ideology. Lol, "all Islamic terrorists are Muslims" is like saying all Grizzly bears are bears. All Pope John Pauls are Popes. All bears who shit in the woods are bears. All popes... ok you probably got it by now.

You fail in logic and the SAT's Analogy section. White people are to the KKK what Muslims are to violent religious sects. Your argument was that white people are to the KKK, what violent sects are to Muslims.


Give me one instance where the rulers of an Islamic society have used their religion to try and foster an air of peace, tolerance and understanding. The Ottoman Empire and the Moors in Spain. In these and other examples from the middle ages, minority religions were often just taxed more but were bothered for the most part otherwise. When the moors took over the Iberian peninsula Jews had been persecuted and the Moors armed the Jewish population and then put Jewish leaders in charge of various regions. In 1492, Catholic monarchs had taken over and Jews were forcibly expelled - later they were hunted in the Inquisition. The expelled Jews were welcomed in Muslim North Africa.

Neither the barbarity of Christianity at this time nor the relative tolerance (it was better than Christian Europe or the Roman Empire, but also not a paradise... real tolerance rather than integration or equality) of Muslim empires can be traced back as a direct result of scripture or teachings. How these societies functioned had to do with the social and political situations of feudal Europe and North Africa. The same is true today.

[hatzel]

pussified ultra-Left politics

Yo buddy aren't you supposed to be pretending to be an anarchist or something? Gotta try harder to stay in character...

[Azraella]

As others have pointed out: it's possible to be against hating Muslims and LGBT folks. Like seriously, this world is not that black and white.

I just can't wait for a world that can stop being a dick about shit and start respecting individuals as individuals.

[Ostrinski]

ITT: People responding to banned user

[Guy Incognito]

Banned? I thought he was only restricted.

[NewLeft]

Banned? I thought he was only restricted.
He's off to the gulag

[Omsk]

Do i dislike Islam?Yes.Why?Because i am against all religion.

[LOLseph Stalin]

He's off to the gulag

Apparently he was a sockpuppet? O.o

[Guy Incognito]

Do i dislike Islam?Yes.Why?Because i am against all religion.

A much more reasonable position.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm personally not against any religion, just the retarded people who try to force it on others(Christians are the most notorious for that as we know) and such. That goes for atheists too who ridicule people for believing and such. And yes, I know of plenty of atheists who have been ridiculed and such for not being anti-religion enough.

[Ostrinski]

That's cause anti-theism is just goofy.

[Omsk]

Bare in mind that i am a Marxist-Leninist,and Marxism-Leninism is against organized religion,and religion in general.

[hatzel]

Bare in mind that i am a Marxist-Leninist,and Marxism-Leninism is against organized religion,and religion in general.

And how about when you dare to deviate from the party line?

[Ostrinski]

Bare in mind that i am a Marxist-Leninist,and Marxism-Leninism is against organized religion,and religion in general.Great horse, man. Is this what you rode in on?

[Omsk]

And how about when you dare to deviate from the party line?


Presuming i would want to betray the correct line of this,party?



Great horse, man. Is this what you rode in on?


I am not a native English language speaker,could you somehow rewrite this?

[Blake's Baby]

Don't worry about it. It refers to being on a 'high horse', meaning a ridiculous position.

I may think on the whole that you're quite annoying Omsk, but on this, I'm with you. Religion is not helpful to humanity. The sooner it dies out the better.

Though that really doesn't mean we should kill the religious.

[dodger]

Strange to be talking religion on a blog. In UK I would no more think of asking a person their religion as enquire his bank balance. Most impolite. Of course a Polish or Irish accent, Spanish one might suppose catholic, but could assume too much. A turban , a Sikh. In America I found people in a friendly way would ask what denomination I was. It threw me the first time.....eventually I trained myself to say Anglican...anything for a peaceful holiday. Most folk simply do not think it important. A relative mailed me to say the Tory got in . 6 months later I discovered he was a muslim...Shakespeare's birthplace...not an immigrant area.
Point I was making it was not deemed important his religion or ethnicity, to tell me. Religion or lack of one of course is not of any importance, in any scheme of things. That does not stop people despising it or the people who practice it . I t does not stop mocking or believing adherents are ignorant or backward somehow. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT 'THEY' THINK WE ARE STRANGE. i KNOW FOR A FACT. THEY DO......I have lived cheek by jowl with these people the religion will either adapt or die.

One in particular did die...a tube bomber born here of west Indian parents. I actually knew him. He killed 27 people, maimed injured heaven knows how many. I was sailing with fellow tube workers got into Sardinia and got the news of bombs on the underground. We made calls to check friends relatives OK. Got hold of a paper, "one of them is from your place". Sure enough he was. 19yrs married with kid another on the way. his wife a white girl he had met at the mosque. They were regular visitors to the canal to feed my ducks he was smartly dressed a good looking teenager, she wore muslim gear . Both friendly. I had even run after her with her umbrella she had forgotten to pick up.we both laughed , she said she would forget her head if it was not screwed on. In any event they had seen me once in my uniform. I still have not fully rationalized that business, I don't suppose I ever will.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Bare in mind that i am a Marxist-Leninist,and Marxism-Leninism is against organized religion,and religion in general.

Which is one of my major issues with communism. you guys don't like when religious people impose their beliefs on you so I'm sure religious people don't like it when atheism is forced upon them. I certainly don't and actually felt my religious beliefs were in conflict with communism so had to suppress those beliefs in order to be a communist.

So yea, I just find it hypocritical that most communists seem to be accepting of pretty much any kind of lifestyle choice imaginable except for religion.

[Omsk]

Though that really doesn't mean we should kill the religious.


Of course,i agree.


I may think on the whole that you're quite annoying Omsk

Why?;)



you guys don't like when religious people impose their beliefs on you so I'm sure religious people don't like it when atheism is forced upon them.


No forcing.

[LOLseph Stalin]

No forcing.

Ah, fair enough. What would you do about religious people in a communist society then? Would they be free to believe what they want? I'm religious and certainly wouldn't want to have something else forced upon me against my will.

[Omsk]

Ah, fair enough. What would you do about religious people in a communist society then? Would they be free to believe what they want? I'm religious and certainly wouldn't want to have something else forced upon me against my will.


Simple,people would see the futility of the religious beliefs and would soon abandon them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Simple,people would see the futility of the religious beliefs and would soon abandon them.

I think that's idealistic thinking. You may think religion is a silly concept, but billions of people do not and would take it to the grave.

[Omsk]

I think that's idealistic thinking. You may think religion is a silly concept, but billions of people do not and would take it to the grave.


In modern times it would be much faster in some countries,while in some,it could take centuries,as much as the time needed for the people to accept religion.

Religion is not to be fought with pointless words,but with the advances,and the improvement of life.As life gets better,fewer people will need religion for consolation.

And the clergy is a completely different story,the most reactionary bulwarks of opposition are usually stationed within the Church.Such casses were in the USSR (The White Guard was supported by the clergy.),and for an example,were very notorious in the territory of former Yugoslavia. (Each ultra-nationalist group was also very religious.)

[Saviourselves]

I think that's idealistic thinking. You may think religion is a silly concept, but billions of people do not and would take it to the grave.
What is religion ? Silly idealism

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ah, fair enough. What would you do about religious people in a communist society then? Would they be free to believe what they want? I'm religious and certainly wouldn't want to have something else forced upon me against my will.

In most of the world, even at the height of class consciousness, many workers who are religious will be needed to play important roles in organizing the revolution. If there is a massive upsurge in struggle, no doubt many working class people with religious beliefs will be a part of that.

Workers may have to push back against religious organizations that have sided with the ruling class and are playing a reactionary role, but this is not an attack on religion but on a social institution and the difference between general believers in Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Whatever and the role played by the institution. Some small religious groups may also even side with the workers or militant workers with religious ideas will set up new groups.

After a revolution institutions will flatly have to accept working class rule or they will be considered counter-revolutionary organizations. But other than that I think there has to be freedom of religion after a revolution (within reason, obviously religions trying to force non-believers to act in certain ways or that subvert some necessary principle of working class democratic power). In the short-term this will help disarm any attempts by counter-revolutionaries to rally people to reaction through a call for "religious freedom". In the long term this religious freedom along with a society that has no need for many of the traditional social roles of religion will help maintain the private spiritual religious practices while keeping the social sphere social and secular, not religious.

In a life where people have more freedom to do what they want, no financial and job stress and worries, better healthcare, and are democratically and cooperatively empowered to try and fix problems in life, the more religion will only satisfy the more metaphysical questions of life. My personal opinion is that this will greatly wither-away religious beliefs because people will find more satisfactory answers elsewhere and religion won't be needed to have a sense of community or to act as social charities. I could be wrong, but I do think in the very least this kind of arrangement would maintain a material sphere run on a material basis (in other words a fully secular society) while allowing religious believers the freedom to believe what they want and not have it negatively impact others. You can not force people to give up beliefs and just "educating people" won't do anything either because people don't turn to religion because they are simply brainwashed, they turn to it to fill needs in their lives and answer questions and give relief to their fears and frustrations.

I think people (conservatives and right-christians often) mistakenly think that "the opium of the people" means that religion drugs and stupefies people like a spiritual date-rape drug. But opium at that time was a widely used pain-killer and rather than "drug" I think the quote means that religion "numbs" people to the pain of the system. So people turn to religion for meaning in life because if they look at things materially it's pretty bleak given the constraints of the system: really the material meaning of our lives in capitalism is to labor and produce profits for others. It gives a supernatural reason for going on and getting through suffering. But like a painkiller, at it's best and most effective it doesn't do a damn thing to actually cure the source of the pain, it just makes it a little easier to deal with.

[Guy Incognito]

I think that's idealistic thinking. You may think religion is a silly concept, but billions of people do not and would take it to the grave.

I honestly don't think it's idealistic at all. Frankly I think it's the only way to truly transition from a religious to a secular socialist community. It would take time, that's the point. No force, no prostletyzing, just good living conditions for everyone. They'll come around in a generation or two, and those that don't wouldn't be hurting anyone.

[Left Leanings]

It is perfectly possible to be both anti-homophobia and anti-Islamophobia.

Not all Muslims are homophobic, though they are often portrayed this way in the media. The Islamic groups that capture the most media attention, tend to be the more outspoken, extreme and provacative ones. But there are many tolerant Muslims, and, indeed, gay Muslims.

It is right to be critical of the extreme elements of Islam, with regard to their homophobia. But at the same time, vigilance is required in defending Muslims from the generalized Islamophobia whipped up by the media, on the back of a small number of extreme and noticeable groups.

[LOLseph Stalin]

In most of the world, even at the height of class consciousness, many workers who are religious will be needed to play important roles in organizing the revolution. If there is a massive upsurge in struggle, no doubt many working class people with religious beliefs will be a part of that.

Workers may have to push back against religious organizations that have sided with the ruling class and are playing a reactionary role, but this is not an attack on religion but on a social institution and the difference between general believers in Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Whatever and the role played by the institution. Some small religious groups may also even side with the workers or militant workers with religious ideas will set up new groups.

Well assuming I was in such a scenario I personally wouldn't have a problem with fighting against the religious establishment. Yes, I'm one of those anti-clerical relying on my own interpretations type of people.


In a life where people have more freedom to do what they want, no financial and job stress and worries, better healthcare, and are democratically and cooperatively empowered to try and fix problems in life, the more religion will only satisfy the more metaphysical questions of life. My personal opinion is that this will greatly wither-away religious beliefs because people will find more satisfactory answers elsewhere and religion won't be needed to have a sense of community or to act as social charities. I could be wrong, but I do think in the very least this kind of arrangement would maintain a material sphere run on a material basis (in other words a fully secular society) while allowing religious believers the freedom to believe what they want and not have it negatively impact others. You can not force people to give up beliefs and just "educating people" won't do anything either because people don't turn to religion because they are simply brainwashed, they turn to it to fill needs in their lives and answer questions and give relief to their fears and frustrations.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in this thread before, but I really doubt better conditions for everybody would make them abandon religion. Look at America, for example. The average person is pretty well-off compared to people in places like Africa yet many people in America are pretty much just as religious as people in Africa. So yea, I think it's more than just some desire to fill a void in one's life.


I think people (conservatives and right-christians often) mistakenly think that "the opium of the people" means that religion drugs and stupefies people like a spiritual date-rape drug. But opium at that time was a widely used pain-killer and rather than "drug" I think the quote means that religion "numbs" people to the pain of the system. So people turn to religion for meaning in life because if they look at things materially it's pretty bleak given the constraints of the system: really the material meaning of our lives in capitalism is to labor and produce profits for others. It gives a supernatural reason for going on and getting through suffering. But like a painkiller, at it's best and most effective it doesn't do a damn thing to actually cure the source of the pain, it just makes it a little easier to deal with.

Again, that's pretty idealistic. A communist society isn't just suddenly going to bring about some perfect paradise where everybody will be happy. In fact, there'll be plenty of unhappy people, such as those who oppose communism in the first place. Sorry, but I'm a realist, and a pretty pessimistic one at that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in this thread before, but I really doubt better conditions for everybody would make them abandon religion. Look at America, for example. The average person is pretty well-off compared to people in places like Africa yet many people in America are pretty much just as religious as people in Africa. So yea, I think it's more than just some desire to fill a void in one's life.First, the US has very high inequality and workers here work harder than in Europe with less reward. I don't think most people in the US feel secure in their life, are free from competition or HEALTH care related stress, personal debt, deceasing social mobility for their kids. Are black people relatively better off in the US, because there's a fair number of religious black people?

The US is also a country where social services have increasingly been put into the hands of religious institutions and a society where people are discouraged from trusting others or asking for help. In this context, churches - especially in many remote areas or suburban areas - play many of the functions that secular social services play as well as community groups. There's this situation on top of 30 years of a ruling class attack in which right-wing religious people were used as the ground-troops for right-wing economic policies and attacks on past social reforms and rewarded with increased social capital.

So on the one level is the political role of religious organizations and that can be taken on politically in ways that promote secularism while not instantly polarizing religious people and pushing them to support right-wing policies on a "religious freedom" basis. This political role is the result of concrete organizing and campaigns by the right-wing through religious institutions. The way to take this on isn't to attack religion itself or religious believers, but to out-organize. This is the reason the religious right is powerful in the US, it isn't religious belief, it's organization.

In Europe or in the past in the US, there would have been union halls in working class areas, more working class clubs, political party neighborhood offices (even republican and democrat in the past in the US), and so on. This has been broken up or ossified and conservitized (i.e. union halls now being more like corporate offices, privatization of community gathering places). So where do many workers in the US meet each week outside the workplace - churches and the right has used this to their advantage by organizing the religious right. When I was a kid, no Catholic I knew would have said evolution is a myth, but now this formally marginal and anachronistic belief it's accepted by tons of regular Catholics. In the 1970s, abortion was about women's equality, not religious ideas but now even pro-choice supporters are confused about what the issue is about and backpedal about when life begins and all this other shit that's not the point.

Fighting religious ideas by appealing to ideals just won't work. You can't reason with a belief that is inherently mystical and beyond material reason. We also can't have a revolution in most places without religious workers being involved, so it seems clear to me that the way to deal with this situation is by making a political class case about material society, taking on religion only when it is being used to mask repressive political goals. Most people who are pro-choice probably also are not aeithiests - just by the numbers, there are more pro-choicers than there are agnostic and atheist people in the US.


Again, that's pretty idealistic. A communist society isn't just suddenly going to bring about some perfect paradise where everybody will be happy. In fact, there'll be plenty of unhappy people, such as those who oppose communism in the first place. Sorry, but I'm a realist, and a pretty pessimistic one at that.No believing that you can argue people out of ideas with another set of ideas irregardless of the material situation in the world is idealism. I'm talking about a materialist approach to the question of religious beliefs. I have argued where I think these beliefs come from materially in modern society: need for community support and camaraderie, need to have a sense that life is more than just working until you die for other people, gives a reason for suffering poverty or health problems or facing unjust situations. So if this is the case, if religious ideas are rooted in the kind of society we have and the various needs of people in this society (both at the top and bottom of the system) then logically changing the organization of society in a material and fundamental way, could change the way people deal with these issues.

I'm not talking about a magical paradise, in fact I spent a lot of time talking about how people who masked actively reactionary ideas in religious language would have to be treated like other counter-revolutionary organizations. Sure there will be many problems, but these problems can be handeled in a democratic and cooperative way which again lessens the sense of alienation from the way society works which cause many people to become attracted to religious arguments. The whole point of (particularly right-wing, but true of all) religious moralism is if people didn't do X, then the moral fabric of society would be much stronger and we wouldn't have so many problems. But if society was organized so that all parents got free childcare when they needed it, free medical care for giving birth, free healthcare, and so on then the whole idea of "unwed mothers" would loose all material meaning because an unwed mother could care for their child as well as 2 or 3 or 5 parents because unwed mothers wouldn't be forced to choose, do I work 2 jobs so I can afford childcare or send my kid to college even though it would mean spending less time with them? And thousands of people wouldn't have to choose quitting school or jobs to have kids, etc. If there were programs for people with substance abuse, then again alcoholism or drug abuse wouldn't need to be seen as private moral failings, but as a social problem with a relatively simple solution, some medical care and therapy - it works ok for the rich... at least better than imprisonment and poverty and social isolation.

Why do they say "there are no anesthetists in fox-holes"? Because as a grunt you are put into situations completely beyond your control and so why not ask a magical figure to hope that you can get through the chaos ok. That's a microcosm of how I think religion generally works in society. If people pull themselves out of the fox-holes, overthrow their generals, then there's a chance to take matters into our own hands which cuts down the desire for supernatural intervention.

[Left Leanings]

Despite developments in scientific endeavour, and the extension of education to an increasing number of people, religion persists, even in the so-called 'developed world'. The main reason for this, is that the primary appeal of religion is not to the intellect, but to the emotions.

The religious can play a part in challenging the status quo and transforming society, exemplified in the liberation theologians of Latin America, and other Christian socialists.

My belief is that freedom of religion is a fundamental prerequisite of freedom from religion.