How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[MisterE]

Oh, and finally MisterE - it's you, compson et al who are focusing on being called "racist". Is anti-Islamic biogtry often racist? Yes, it is IMHO. Sure you can smugly say "AH, BUT IT'S NOT A RACE!" but just look at how Muslims are represented in the West. Just google image search Muslim and look what you see - brown people. So at the very least, you can't just dismiss the idea that Islam is racialised in the public mind with some neat logical twist.

 

But that's beside the point, because while yes, I've rightly pointed out the dangers of this dogmatic and uncritical way of thinking - that it leads to and justifies racism and worse - it's in no sense the main content of the arguments that I, SR4, Alco or anyone else are making. By focusing on some largely nebulous accusation of racism as if we're just screeching "YOU'RE A RACIST! INVALID OPINION!" you do our arguments a disservice and "shut down discussion" yourself.

 

I'm off to work

i never said it wasn't a race or anything like that and i wouldn't say that because i don't really care. i'm also not saying that there is no racist sentiment behind any of the people's words who are speaking out against islam. but i think you'd be harder pressed to really make the case that the racism against them is the bigger part of why the US is over there. is obama racist against muslims? he's the one playing with those drones like they are his own personal video game, probably ramping the hatred the middle east has for us exponentially more than it already was. is obama using fox news as his own personal propaganda platform???? i mean i dont really know what some of the people in this thread are really suggesting with this whole rampant anti-islam propaganda to support the war thing. our president didn't need ANYONE'S support to dethrone Gaddafi. i dont think the guy really gives a shit whether or not the rednecks of this country are behind his blowing up muslims. i don't think it affects his doing it one iota. so i don't really see there being any NEED for this type of government sourced propaganda. he does whatever the hell he wants regardless of who supports it. how many of his own voters were happy with the troops being withdrawn from iraq (which was almost exactly in accordance with bush's own timetable/scheduled withdrawal and NO SOONER, btw), only to be sent into afghanistan or any number of other places? did that stop them from voting on him the 2nd time? why would they (the current gov) waste any time on propaganda?

 

and how does google image search even work? my understanding is that google search finds things that are linked to and places those with the most links first. maybe a lot of the liberals running some of the major online news outlets see muslims as being brown themselves? huh, funny that. but how is that propaganda?

 

the thing about people being critical of islam being probable racists might not be your or SR4's main point, but that doesn't mean i or anyone else can't attack it as a possible chink in armor type of thing. it's supposing moral highground and trumping up the case against islam criticizers (which i myself have not done yet in this thread, and typically avoid doing). it's being thrown in there as a cherry on the cake saying 'not only is the military action against these people unjust, but it's motivated by HAAAAATRED. WAAAAAAHHHH!! *sniffles*'. if it can be shown that maybe some of these people saying that have hate too (but for other groups that are 'OK' and within PC bounds to hate), and that their moral stance against hatred is disingenuous, that takes their cherry, at least.

[syd syside]

If anything, it tells a lot about Iran's relative position within the Muslim world.

 

Yeah Iranian people are the best allies of the US in the middle east I think?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/those-friendly-iranians.html

 

[goDel]

That table makes me wonder what the underlying amounts of people (Rep, Dem, Ind) were. If the overall support for Israels attack on Iran is 39% when 62% of Reps agree, that must mean that the Reps are awfully over-presented in us politics. It looks like a minority opinion with the 'punch' of 50% of the US. Something smells funny and it's not just US politics.

[goDel]

Also, another good post of misterE. Thanks man.

[Guest Iain C]

I'm at work so can't respond as fully as I'd like but nobody is making the claim that the US is meddling in Muslim countries because of racism. It's motivated by money, resources and geopolitical strategy. Whether racism is used to justify or legitimise those positions in the eyes of the public is a different discussion.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[syd syside]

[Guest Iain C]

Also compson your ignorance of ethnicity and religion is showing again. The total number of Arabs in the world, all faiths, is about 1/5th of all Muslims. They're actually a very small group of people and even then they're hardly homogeneous. This is an aside but it should be pointed out.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[goDel]

So I sense some form of agreement about this issue not being about racism? Can we put that in the box of established points? Even Greenwald wrote it wasn't the issue, despite his - imo - ambiguous remarks about it (which should also be pointed out, imo).

[syd syside]

Also compson your ignorance of ethnicity and religion is showing again. The total number of Arabs in the world, all faiths, is about 1/5th of all Muslims. They're actually a very small group of people and even then they're hardly homogeneous. This is an aside but it should be pointed out.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I stand corrected. The population or break-down of ethnicity was never important to me because this issue has never been about race.

 

Ethnicity

Arabs constitute the majority ethnic group in all of the Middle East states except Iran, Israel, and Turkey (see political map):

 

The reason I am focused on the Middle East is because that is where there is Islamic Fascism.

 

This is a learning process. Or should I not admit that I don't know everything? I'm willing to change views, but these strawman's are growing tiring.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

For the record, I actually wouldn't use words like "redneck" and I agree with you that it is pretty ignorant - at worst it's extremely anti-working-class language. But actually, all forms of prejudice are NOT equal. Only somebody in an exceptionally privileged position would see it that way. Bigotry and prejudice are generally bad in an abstract sense, sure, but it goes beyond that - it's about how widespread those attitudes are, to what extent they're fostered and encouraged by the state and media, what acts and policies those attitudes are used to justify...

 

There's a lot, lot more to bigotry, racism etc. than the attitudes at their core. Like I say - it's what those attitudes are used for and how they're enacted in society.

 

So actually, I'm pretty comfortable saying that all bigotry is not equal. I don't feel at all threatened by so-called "anti white racism" for example.

 

Also, on Islamophobia. I generally agree, it's not a useful term. Bigotry works just fine, or "anti-Islamic bigotry" if you need to get specific.

i sort of kind of agree with what you are saying here, but there are separate aspects that get muddled. a lot of times when people throw out words like 'racism' or 'bigot' the emphasis is on the mentality itself. and the accuser is taking a moral stance, and supposing their own moral high ground, based on that issue of it being wrong to look down on others merely because of their skin color or whatever other factor defines that group.

 

i agree that some groups are treated worse/discriminated against more than others, and i would agree that that makes it 'more of a problem'. but usually when people throw out racism or phobia accusations, they don't specify that side of it so much. they just use those labels which emphasize that the mentality of judging other groups is morally wrong. then those same people will judge other groups and think it's ok for THEM to do that. if people want to talk about a group being oppressed or treated wrong on a big scale they should be able to do that without bringing isms into it as if they are squeeky clean themselves. sometimes it seems to me that some of the people throwing out isms are just as ist.

 

how about hate crime laws for an example? the emphasis there is on whether the motivating factor was some kind of blind hate. if so the punishment is harsher. so this is legislation saying that the hate itself is a crime and adds to the sentencing. but it only seems to be used if the victim is non-white. several cases have happened where there was more than enough evidence that a white victim was attacked in a hate driven crime, but hate-crime was never attached to it. so why call it 'hate' crime, which is suggesting that hate itself is bad? why not call it 'black victim crime'? it's a perfect example of what you are saying. the idea is to equalize out rampant white on black crime (although statistics seem to indicate it happens more the other way around...(but that's a whole other topic)), but they put the word hate in there as if to emphasize the hate itself as being THE bad thing. it's a lie. it's not about the hate, it's about who the victim is. if you have a problem with military acts against islam, say that, don't muddle the issue by calling it islamophobia.

flol man

[Alcofribas]

also the south park episode with mohammed in a bearsuit is speaking volumes, if you ask me. Maher makes some good points about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUEaMA4gRIk

 

maher makes no good points whatsoever, what are you talking about? his entirely argument is simply that "we" are better than "them" and he basically uses "muslims," "muslim extremists," and "the taliban" as interchangeable definitions of "them." this is nothing but old school "we are better than the other" nonsense that one hears all the time, usually during some awkward family dinner where everyone sits quietly eating their peas while your grandpa rants about how the lazy wetbacks beat their wives and take all the jobs or something.

[Alcofribas]

tbh i'm pretty tired of this argument. it's pretty obvious to me that sam harris, and bill maher, are bigots. their comments on "islam" are so blatantly uninformed and prejudiced that i can't imagine how people could support them or even stomach them enough to nitpick whether they are precisely racist, islamophobic, bigoted or whatever.

[Guest grue]

here is a piece written in defense of Harris (linked to, but not written by, Harris himself): http://saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

 

there is also an interesting exchange in the comments section between the author of the defense and the author of the original Al Jazeera article that Greenwald discussed, which echoes some points people are making in this thread.

 

my sense is that the disagreement is largely the result of approaching the question with different levels of abstraction. i'm not terribly familiar with Harris, but my understanding is that his training is largely in philosophy and that his take on these issues is often primarily theoretical, although he would agree that they have practical consequences.

 

what i mean is that, in the abstract, the following two claims are obviously correct: 1) that there could be doctrinal differences between religions and 2) that these doctrinal differences could lead to different propensities towards violence and oppression by those who hold religious views. those are two claims that Harris is making that seem quite right. where things get controversial is that Harris goes on to make the additional claim that, as a matter of fact, the doctrinal differences that separate Islam from other religions are like those described in claim 2.

 

here things get messy because to establish that claim about Islam would require a very careful reading of Islamic texts and history (similarly with refuting the claim), and no one on either side of the debate here is doing that, as far as I can see (i haven't read all the posts though). furthermore, the issue is complicated by the real-world context, in which there is a massive difference in power and capacity for violence between western nations and primarily Muslim nations, which raises real (but not insurmountable) questions about the objectivity of commenters from those western nations. this, i take it, is the force of Hussain's comments in the article I posted: that perhaps, as an abstract philosophical analysis, Harris' views might have some plausibility, but when applied to a real-world circumstance, like the conflict between the US and the Middle East, some extra skepticism is warranted given the historical and political context.

 

and that seems to me a plausible view. in principle, i agree with Harris that it's conceivable that different religious groups are differentially prone to violence as a result of their religious beliefs, but i also agree with Greenwald (and various people here) that this is a dangerous argument to make in the current context, for at least two reasons: first, it's hard (not impossible, but hard) to be sure that one is not being influenced by dubious political forces when making this argument. anyone who understands prejudice knows that not all prejudice is conscious, explicit prejudice. and second, even if one is arguing in good faith, it's easy for others to appropriate your arguments for more nefarious ends. so even if, as i think is false, Harris were a pacifist critic of Islam, his arguments could still be used to justify violence.

 

on the whole, i agree more with Greenwald, because i object to all forms of aggression, including US aggression in the Middle East. but i think it would be unfortunate to conclude from this that criticizing any religion, including Islam, is off limits, or suspect, or the product of Bush-era brainwashing. perhaps a lesson to draw is that people should be more cautious about the kinds of criticisms they make and, in particular, more reflective about the sources of their own beliefs about those religions and the effects of their criticisms on others.

[eugene]

very nice summary

[Hoodie]

bravo grue

[Alcofribas]

yeah, excellent post

[RichieBees]

once someone called me a cracker and thats the same as a black man being called the n word

[pcock]

except a whole history of white/black inequality means it isnt.

[luke viia]

here is a piece written in defense of Harris (linked to, but not written by, Harris himself): http://saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

 

there is also an interesting exchange in the comments section between the author of the defense and the author of the original Al Jazeera article that Greenwald discussed, which echoes some points people are making in this thread.

 

my sense is that the disagreement is largely the result of approaching the question with different levels of abstraction. i'm not terribly familiar with Harris, but my understanding is that his training is largely in philosophy and that his take on these issues is often primarily theoretical, although he would agree that they have practical consequences.

 

what i mean is that, in the abstract, the following two claims are obviously correct: 1) that there could be doctrinal differences between religions and 2) that these doctrinal differences could lead to different propensities towards violence and oppression by those who hold religious views. those are two claims that Harris is making that seem quite right. where things get controversial is that Harris goes on to make the additional claim that, as a matter of fact, the doctrinal differences that separate Islam from other religions are like those described in claim 2.

 

here things get messy because to establish that claim about Islam would require a very careful reading of Islamic texts and history (similarly with refuting the claim), and no one on either side of the debate here is doing that, as far as I can see (i haven't read all the posts though). furthermore, the issue is complicated by the real-world context, in which there is a massive difference in power and capacity for violence between western nations and primarily Muslim nations, which raises real (but not insurmountable) questions about the objectivity of commenters from those western nations. this, i take it, is the force of Hussain's comments in the article I posted: that perhaps, as an abstract philosophical analysis, Harris' views might have some plausibility, but when applied to a real-world circumstance, like the conflict between the US and the Middle East, some extra skepticism is warranted given the historical and political context.

 

and that seems to me a plausible view. in principle, i agree with Harris that it's conceivable that different religious groups are differentially prone to violence as a result of their religious beliefs, but i also agree with Greenwald (and various people here) that this is a dangerous argument to make in the current context, for at least two reasons: first, it's hard (not impossible, but hard) to be sure that one is not being influenced by dubious political forces when making this argument. anyone who understands prejudice knows that not all prejudice is conscious, explicit prejudice. and second, even if one is arguing in good faith, it's easy for others to appropriate your arguments for more nefarious ends. so even if, as i think is false, Harris were a pacifist critic of Islam, his arguments could still be used to justify violence.

 

on the whole, i agree more with Greenwald, because i object to all forms of aggression, including US aggression in the Middle East. but i think it would be unfortunate to conclude from this that criticizing any religion, including Islam, is off limits, or suspect, or the product of Bush-era brainwashing. perhaps a lesson to draw is that people should be more cautious about the kinds of criticisms they make and, in particular, more reflective about the sources of their own beliefs about those religions and the effects of their criticisms on others.

 

QG analysis

 

quoted for the new page

[Hoodie]

except a whole history of white/black inequality means it isnt.

 

are you saying that historical context is more important than intent when evaluating the actions of others?

[goDel]

 

here is a piece ...

 

what i mean is that, in the abstract, the following two claims are obviously correct: 1) that there could be doctrinal differences between religions and 2) that these doctrinal differences could lead to different propensities towards violence and oppression by those who hold religious views. those are two claims that Harris is making that seem quite right. where things get controversial is that Harris goes on to make the additional claim that, as a matter of fact, the doctrinal differences that separate Islam from other religions are like those described in claim 2.

 

here things get messy because to establish that claim about Islam would require a very careful reading of Islamic texts and history (similarly with refuting the claim), and no one on either side of the debate here is doing that, as far as I can see (i haven't read all the posts though). furthermore, the issue is complicated by the real-world context, in which there is a massive difference in power and capacity for violence between western nations and primarily Muslim nations, which raises real (but not insurmountable) questions about the objectivity of commenters from those western nations. ...

 

QG analysis

 

quoted for the new page

 

Indeed.

 

On that second claim is especially where Ayaan Hirsi Ali was making her points, btw. She's mostly coming from the women's rights perspective and basically riling against the poor position of women in Islamic societies.

 

What I don't quite get is why there needs to be a focus on "a massive difference in power and capacity for violence between western nations and primarily Muslim nations". I mean, is the US consensus it's at war with Muslim nations? (not here at this forum, but in US society) Really? If that's the case I could understand where some people are coming from. But I'd be surprised if that was the general consensus in the US.

 

And btw, Alco, on that bigoted maher rant, did you even get to the 4 minute mark, or did you just quit watching after a couple of minutes? Starting from the 4 minute mark he's actually making his points and nuancing the "muslim" vs. "extremists" stuff you hated. The first 4 minutes he just basically makes fun of every religious being on the planet (usual maher stuff). And yes, that involves lots of generalisations in all kinds of directions. Some would call that comedy. I'm guessing you don't?

[pcock]

 

except a whole history of white/black inequality means it isnt.

 

are you saying that historical context is more important than intent when evaluating the actions of others?

im saying that being called a cracker for being white, in effect and context, is not as offensive as calling a black person the n word. Much the same as shortening the term british to brit, is not the same thing as shortening pakistani to paki.

[syd syside]

on the whole, i agree more with Greenwald, because i object to all forms of aggression, including US aggression in the Middle East. but i think it would be unfortunate to conclude from this that criticizing any religion, including Islam, is off limits, or suspect, or the product of Bush-era brainwashing. perhaps a lesson to draw is that people should be more cautious about the kinds of criticisms they make and, in particular, more reflective about the sources of their own beliefs about those religions and the effects of their criticisms on others.

 

Agreed nice post.

 

My argument is that Islamic Fascism is a form of aggression. So the issue is how do we deal with it?

 

And thats where I want to focus the conversation.

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

wow, this thread is crazy. here's my general take: I'm not a big fan of criticisms such as the one against sam harris. instead of trying to make a tenuous case about someone's motivations, why not just argue the assertions they make individually? why spend your time trying to make him out to be a meany? whether his motivations are pure or not, the things he says are either supported by the evidence or they're not. personally, I see the muslim restrictions on life as a more extreme version of the bullshit I deal with here in the states from christians. there are people here who would like to install an evangelical christian theocracy. I don't approve of muslims having power over others anymore than I approve of the christian knuckleheads in my own country having it. I see religious moderates as enablers for the extremists. in order to be a moderate, you have to jump through hoops in order to interpret your holy book in particular ways. in order to be an extremist, you just have to open it up and take it at face value. if you want to be a moderate, you should renounce the holy book, but of course they'll probably never do that, as they have too much invested in it, even if most of them have never read it.

[awepittance]

 

on the whole, i agree more with Greenwald, because i object to all forms of aggression, including US aggression in the Middle East. but i think it would be unfortunate to conclude from this that criticizing any religion, including Islam, is off limits, or suspect, or the product of Bush-era brainwashing. perhaps a lesson to draw is that people should be more cautious about the kinds of criticisms they make and, in particular, more reflective about the sources of their own beliefs about those religions and the effects of their criticisms on others.

 

Agreed nice post.

 

My argument is that Islamic Fascism is a form of aggression. So the issue is how do we deal with it?

 

And thats where I want to focus the conversation.

 

well the first step on how to deal with 'it' is to stop using a Rush Limbaugh invented buzz word to describe it

 

edit: wait, you want to 'focus' the conversation there? very surprised to hear that you want the conversation driven there since you never ever try to inject that into any discussion about US foreign policy aggression or the muslim religion and how it relates to the united states. (sarcasm). Please feel free to create a separate thread about Islam and why you find it problematic.