|
Mandy Thompson posted:
I'm the >5% of Republicans who think that banning Muslims goes against everything our country stands for, but want to do it anyway.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Just after a terrorist attack people is irrational. After a few months people become more rational ( or dumber, or something). These feelings are going to change. ... Well, they usually change. I don't know with the republicans heating these feelings. The most positive part is that most people think is unamerican.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Tendai posted:gently caress's sake, the fact that 31% of DEMOCRATS answered "Yeah, put them on a database!" is horrifying, too. Put everyone in a database. Monitor it with an A.I., and keep the criteria public and applicable to everyone equally. Long live the Panopticon. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This sort of thing makes right-wing propaganda about sneering liberal academics effective. Most people who are afraid of Muslims are earnestly afraid, not just stupid bigots. Though we certainly have a shitload of those too. You can thank 30-40 years of negative news coverage on Islamic terrorism (the vast majority of which against other Muslims) and 14 years of acute screaming from the Republican party and propaganda wing. "Earnestly afraid" and "stupid bigots" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they typically go hand-in-hand. They're earnestly afraid because they're stupid bigots who just blame the terrorism on skin color or religious beliefs, just like KKK members are "earnestly afraid" of black people. For example, most of those white people who shoot unarmed minority teenagers are honestly afraid and feel that they're acting in self-defense, but the reason they're afraid in the first place is because they're racist. PT6A posted:Of course other religions are equally bad. Sometimes worse! That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't criticise those attitudes no matter where they come from. In that case, why mention religion at all? If you're just saying that anti-gay is bad and should be criticized, regardless of what religion the person is, then why even mention the religion at all? There's no reason to do so unless you're interested in singling out a specific religion. And why do that? By saying "Islamic homophobes are bad, as well as other homophobes" you are already treating Muslims differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I think black criminals are bad. And other criminals too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ohio-seventh-grader-threatened-to-use-dads-gun-to-shoot-muslim-boy-he-called-son-of-isis/ Of the boys father is letting him mess around with guns, he is probably the sort of defective who airs racist bullshit in front of his kids. He should go to an alternative school for a while. We can't condone this kind of behavior and other students need to be protected from this violent bully. And if it was the parents that taught him that, then they can deal with the consequences too. They should be investigated to make sure they aren't abusing him or teaching him hate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In that case, why mention religion at all? If you're just saying that anti-gay is bad and should be criticized, regardless of what religion the person is, then why even mention the religion at all? There's no reason to do so unless you're interested in singling out a specific religion. And why do that? By saying "Islamic homophobes are bad, as well as other homophobes" you are already treating Muslims differently. Because religion often informs people's attitudes toward homosexuality. I mentioned Muslim homophobes specifically because we are discussing the Muslim faith and Islamophobia here. If we were discussing Christianity or Haredi Judaism instead, I would be mentioning homophobes and sexists from those religions as well. We need to live in a world where religions are neither protected from criticism because they're "very important to people," but neither are religions singled out one more than the other for promoting bad ideas. That this is at all controversial confuses me. Surely if Islam were just a philosophy instead of a religion, we could criticize its negative elements, but by virtue of the fact it invokes God, it's protected from criticism? That makes no sense!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Its not because they invoke god. Its Because religion is often a fundamental part of someone's cultural and ethnic heritage. The notion of religion being a choice is a very western idea. Westerners are often confused when they hear terms like atheist Muslim or atheist jew. More over, many religions do not feature a god but are still treated respectfully. Islam is not beyond criticism but criticism should be made diplomatically and with appropriate sensitivity. Often "criticism is just fancy bullying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:We need to live in a world where religions are neither protected from criticism because they're "very important to people," but neither are religions singled out one more than the other for promoting bad ideas. That this is at all controversial confuses me. Surely if Islam were just a philosophy instead of a religion, we could criticize its negative elements, but by virtue of the fact it invokes God, it's protected from criticism? That makes no sense! It's mostly the fact that the people most vocal about their hatred of Islam seem to be the kind of people who want to commit mass genocide. And the reason people bring up how other religions do the same poo poo is because people will criticize Islam for poo poo like homophobia but when presented with the same facts about Christianity will go "but most Christians love the gays now!" as if Islam is unable to change with the times like other religions have tried. Islam can change, for better or worse. It's just that the people who want to enforce change seem to be the ones who want all the Muslims to mass convert or face the sword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:It's mostly the fact that the people most vocal about their hatred of Islam seem to be the kind of people who want to commit mass genocide. I can kind of see this, but on the other hand, I'm right here saying that pretty much all religions (certainly all Abrahamic religions) have really lovely attitudes toward LGBT people and women in their scriptures, and often in their respective cultural practices. Yet it is my specific criticism of those elements in Islam, when we are discussing Islam specifically, which is taken as racist or somehow beyond the pale. That makes no sense. Bigotry against Muslim people is a major problem, and the sorts of people who are intensely concerned with banning Sharia Law in the US yet would gladly have their government run according to their interpretation of Christianity are loving terrible. These things are true. That doesn't mean we should automatically assume that any criticism of any element of Islam is somehow rooted in bigotry, or that criticism of Islam somehow justifies bigotry or hatred towards Muslims. I am no more saying that I dislike Muslims because I dislike certain elements of Islam than I am saying I hate poor people because I dislike poverty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
I don't like black people because they're homophobic. What? Oh I can't criticize homophobia now? Ugh liberals, you're just giving black people special protections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
That's a false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I'm sorry, let me rephrase. I don't like black culture because it's homophobic. That culture is incompatible with the modern world and needs to go...but of course you liberals are okay with homophobia if black people do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
It also depends on which Islamic culture you are talking about. From what I've read, the Pashtun culture in Afghanistan has a number of very serious problems, but I would hesitate to call it homophobic because, well...quote:The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Those guys are freaking hicks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
INH5 posted:It also depends on which Islamic culture you are talking about. From what I've read, the Pashtun culture in Afghanistan has a number of very serious problems, but I would hesitate to call it homophobic because, well... It's loving hilarious that the Islamic world has a reputation for homophobia. Me and my husband will get funny looks holding hands in many major cities in America, but in Saudi Arabia of all places no one bats an eye; it's literally one of the gayest places on earth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, let me rephrase. I don't think it's fair to say you don't like black culture just because some elements of it are problematic and harmful to the black community as much as anyone else, but of course it's fair to criticize the problematic elements of that culture (homophobia, often aided and abetted by religious beliefs, being one significant problematic element). That doesn't mean the entirety of black culture needs to be eliminated, just like Islam's problematic elements do not mean that Islam itself is completely bereft of merit. Just because something has one or two bad qualities, and I (or others) criticize those elements, it doesn't mean we are saying that thing is completely irredeemable in every way, it just means that it has some problematic elements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
INH5 posted:It also depends on which Islamic culture you are talking about. From what I've read, the Pashtun culture in Afghanistan has a number of very serious problems, but I would hesitate to call it homophobic because, well... Oh wait, that might be a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't think it's fair to say you don't like black culture just because some elements of it are problematic and harmful to the black community as much as anyone else, but of course it's fair to criticize the problematic elements of that culture (homophobia, often aided and abetted by religious beliefs, being one significant problematic element). That doesn't mean the entirety of black culture needs to be eliminated, just like Islam's problematic elements do not mean that Islam itself is completely bereft of merit. Well sure, if your actual problem is homophobia and your critique is intended to advocate reform of the teachings of some Islamic sects and the legal systems of some Islamic countries that's not a problem, but some people use that criticism as an excuse for bigotry. Which is why I want to point out a couple of things here. One, there is no monolithic Islam, it's a religion of 1.6 billion people with many different sects over a large part of the globe and includes countries like Indonesia, Turkey, and Bosnia where homosexuality is 100% legal. On the other hand, you have Christian countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, and Russia where homosexuality is severely punished yet rarely do you hear people blaming a nebulous monolithic Christianity for this. Hell, even in the United States, several states still have laws against homosexuality on the books and only the federal government restrains state authorities from enforcing them. Two, gay rights weren't won in the west by attacking anyone's religion or saying Christianity is incompatible with modernity or anything like that. The gay rights movement didn't come out swinging against Christianity telling people their religion was the problem, because attacking people's religion isn't the way to get them to listen to you. LGBT people treated Christians as individual people with independent minds and appealed to them with out common humanity, that gay people are people too, that they're your neighbors, relatives, and friends and that homophobia was doing very real harm to ordinary people just like them. And that worked, a lot of Christians reevaluated what they'd been taught and reconciled their faith with their new realization that gay people aren't demonic perverts waiting in the shadows. Lumping them all together and saying "well your religion is wrong and you need to change it" probably wouldn't have been as effective and would have given ammunition to the conservatives who claim gay people are just out to fight Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, if your actual problem is homophobia and your critique is intended to advocate reform of the teachings of some Islamic sects and the legal systems of some Islamic countries that's not a problem, but some people use that criticism as an excuse for bigotry. Yes; some people do. What I'm saying is that I'm sick of people assuming that I am as well, when I am not. Ironically, it would be like me assuming that any given Muslim hates gay people. I think the fact that some people are disgusting bigots is holding back legitimate criticism of certain forms of Islam, and it's ultimately a very negative thing, most of all for the Muslims who suffer the most oppression by those specific forms of Islam (such as that which is promulgated by Saudi religious authorities).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:For those who say Donnald Trump doesn't represent the modern GOP. Members of my religion have committed more attacks in the US. You don't see people banning them. It's the same as the anti-Chinese sentiment of the 19th century. Whites can behave as badly as they want and nobody thinks it reflects on them as a whole, because the country is "for" them. Peoples who the country is not "for" need to be on their best behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes; some people do. What I'm saying is that I'm sick of people assuming that I am as well, when I am not. Ironically, it would be like me assuming that any given Muslim hates gay people. No it's nothing like that at all. "Judging me for the content of my character, that's just like judging others for the color of their skin!" Islam isn't sacrosanct and above criticism, if the way you're criticizing it is getting reactions like "whoa that's a really unfair thing to say dude" then you should probably thik about the way you're coming across, not conclude that liberals love Muslims and are trying to silence all criticism of their favorite religion. I'm not accusing you of being a bigot because I don't know what you've said on the subject, but if people are having trouble telling what you're saying apart from what bigots say, maybe it's not just them. I notice you didn't address my point about how gay rights was actually won in the west, but if our goal is LGBT rights shouldn't we be concerned with how that was actually accomplished and whether targeting people's religion is effective. Do you think it would have been more effective for LGBT rights to lead with "Christianity has bad qualities"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, if your actual problem is homophobia and your critique is intended to advocate reform of the teachings of some Islamic sects and the legal systems of some Islamic countries that's not a problem, but some people use that criticism as an excuse for bigotry. Homosexuality is not 100% legal in Indonesia, depending on where you live you can be subject to religious influenced laws that victimize it. quote:Two, gay rights weren't won in the west by attacking anyone's religion or saying Christianity is incompatible with modernity or anything like that. The gay rights movement didn't come out swinging against Christianity telling people their religion was the problem, because attacking people's religion isn't the way to get them to listen to you. LGBT people treated Christians as individual people with independent minds and appealed to them with out common humanity, that gay people are people too, that they're your neighbors, relatives, and friends and that homophobia was doing very real harm to ordinary people just like them. And that worked, a lot of Christians reevaluated what they'd been taught and reconciled their faith with their new realization that gay people aren't demonic perverts waiting in the shadows. Lumping them all together and saying "well your religion is wrong and you need to change it" probably wouldn't have been as effective and would have given ammunition to the conservatives who claim gay people are just out to fight Christianity. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I notice you didn't address my point about how gay rights was actually won in the west, but if our goal is LGBT rights shouldn't we be concerned with how that was actually accomplished and whether targeting people's religion is effective. Do you think it would have been more effective for LGBT rights to lead with "Christianity has bad qualities"? Not really, but where people's homophobia is informed by their understanding of the scriptures and practices of the religion they follow, you must eventually cross the bridge of "how do we get these people to stop believing in this one specific lovely part of their religion?" You can put it in a more diplomatic fashion as you like, but that's the nub of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Because religion often informs people's attitudes toward homosexuality. I mentioned Muslim homophobes specifically because we are discussing the Muslim faith and Islamophobia here. If we were discussing Christianity or Haredi Judaism instead, I would be mentioning homophobes and sexists from those religions as well. Religion, typically, is not an aspect of philosophy, it's an aspect of culture. And criticizing someone's culture is often just a dogwhistle for criticizing their race. Also, the last few hundred years of Western history have involved a lot of instances deeming other cultures as "inferior" and attempting to oppress, eradicate, or assimilate them. As a result, culture is somewhat of an incredibly touchy subject in the modern world, and people who aren't assholes generally shy away from criticizing entire cultures based on the actions or beliefs of individuals within those cultures. Blaming all of Islam for Saudi Wahabbists being anti-LGBT is like saying that all of Christianity is racist because Dutch Santa has a black slave. PT6A posted:I don't think it's fair to say you don't like black culture just because some elements of it are problematic and harmful to the black community as much as anyone else, but of course it's fair to criticize the problematic elements of that culture (homophobia, often aided and abetted by religious beliefs, being one significant problematic element). That doesn't mean the entirety of black culture needs to be eliminated, just like Islam's problematic elements do not mean that Islam itself is completely bereft of merit. That begs a very significant question. Is homophobia actually an element of Islamic culture, specifically? After all, there are plenty of non-homophobic Muslims. Maybe it's an element of Middle Eastern culture? Or maybe it's an element of Arab culture? Or maybe it's an element of Saudi culture? Or maybe it's got nothing to do with culture at all! Maybe it instead stems from fundamentalist ideologies which have been enforced upon those countries via armed conquest or revolution. To single out Islam out of all those potential sources as the one and only cultural factor, despite the large number of non-homophobic non-Saudi non-fundamentalist Muslims, seems intellectually lazy at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not really, but where people's homophobia is informed by their understanding of the scriptures and practices of the religion they follow, you must eventually cross the bridge of "how do we get these people to stop believing in this one specific lovely part of their religion?" No it's not. The problem is not in the peoples belief, but in a system that allows those beliefs to infringe on other human rights. Everyone is entitled to a representative government that protects minorities and does not allow civil law to be made by clerics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That begs a very significant question. Is homophobia actually an element of Islamic culture, specifically? After all, there are plenty of non-homophobic Muslims. Maybe it's an element of Middle Eastern culture? Or maybe it's an element of Arab culture? Or maybe it's an element of Saudi culture? Or maybe it's got nothing to do with culture at all! Maybe it instead stems from fundamentalist ideologies which have been enforced upon those countries via armed conquest or revolution. To single out Islam out of all those potential sources as the one and only cultural factor, despite the large number of non-homophobic non-Saudi non-fundamentalist Muslims, seems intellectually lazy at best. But why is it such a bad thing for me to criticize problematic elements of a religion? Those non-homophobic Muslims you speak of are doing just that, in their actions, by acting contrary to what certain Islamic scholars say on the topic, as they should. Many Christians and non-Christians alike criticize the sects of Christianity which condemn homosexuality, as they should. There is, at the very least, scriptural ambiguity in all Abrahamic faiths as to whether homosexuality is permissible. Where people's homophobia is informed by their personal practice and understanding of their own religion, I see no reason why that's not open to criticism on the basis that it may offend someone. Likewise, claiming Daesh has nothing to do with Islam is foolish. They are clearly motivated by their own personal understanding of Islam. It's one that's roundly condemned by the vast, vast majority of Muslims around the world, and it does not mean that Islam itself is responsible for Daesh, or that every Muslim is somehow complicit in their crimes (far from it; Muslims are, by far, the majority of victims of their perverted practice of Islam as they understand it), but it does no good to say that these are separate issues. It would be stupid and bigoted for me to hold the Spanish Inquisition against every Catholic, but it's absurd to claim that the faith of Catholicism wasn't a major causal factor therein. Please read and comprehend: criticizing one element of a religion is not the same thing as criticizing the entirety of that religion. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Context is what should keep you from it. I would love to criticize Saudi Arabia's restrictions on women, but that's tactically and ethically inappropriate right now because it will just be lumped in with all the bigoted rhetoric. And that's unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Context is what should keep you from it. I would love to criticize Saudi Arabia's restrictions on women, but that's tactically and ethically inappropriate right now because it will just be lumped in with all the bigoted rhetoric. And that's unfortunate. That's a fair point; in the midst of very real and potentially violent Islamophobia, perhaps this is not the time to make criticisms, regardless of their validity. I can certainly agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not really, but where people's homophobia is informed by their understanding of the scriptures and practices of the religion they follow, you must eventually cross the bridge of "how do we get these people to stop believing in this one specific lovely part of their religion?" This leads to an interesting question, though - is this homophobia in fact informed by Islamic scripture? They may say it is, but they're often lying in order to make their beliefs harder to assail by putting a divine edict behind them. And yes, I realize that I'm being a little unfair here, since you talked about people's understanding of the scripture, rather than the scripture itself. Thing is, that's a useless measure, because people can twist and distort their own understanding to convince themselves it validates whatever they already wanted to believe. Two hundred years ago, for example, it was common "knowledge" in the American South that racism and slavery were divinely ordained. There were all sorts of bits in the Bible that they would point to (with extensive and often-convoluted reinterpretation, of course) as proof that dark skin was a divine mark of inferiority or unforgiveable skin, and therefore oppressing black people was the Christian thing to do. Is that a knock against Christianity? Of course not - it's a knock against the culture of the American South in the 19th century, which essentially made up its own interpretation of Christianity to act as a justification for elements of their own culture. Incidentally, it goes the opposite way too - when groups come up with a Bible verse they don't like, they redefine and reinterpret the text until they come up with some convoluted reading that suits their lifestyle or cultural preferences much more closely. For example, the fairly clear and straightforward criticisms of wealth and riches in the New Testament have been reinterpreted and twisted in a number of different ways by various groups in efforts to make them compatible with pro-rich ideologies. Does that mean that Christianity, as a whole, is pro-rich? It is absurd to criticize an entire religion based on a single group's interpretation of that religion, because people can twist religion to fit just about any set of beliefs they please, and tend to alter the meaning of religious decrees freely in order to fit religious beliefs into their existing belief set. It's an utterly impossible standard. You might as well blame the theory of evolution for the Nazi interpretations of it. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It is absurd to criticize an entire religion based on a single group's interpretation of that religion, because people can twist religion to fit just about any set of beliefs they please, and tend to alter the meaning of religious decrees freely in order to fit religious beliefs into their existing belief set. It's an utterly impossible standard. Wow, then it sure is a good thing that I made explicitly clear that my criticisms of one part of a religion don't involve criticizing that entire religion or criticizing everyone who follows it! Seriously, I've made that explicitly clear in writing multiple times, and you're still harping on about this. Are you literate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Homosexuality is not 100% legal in Indonesia, depending on where you live you can be subject to religious influenced laws that victimize it. It's still legal in a lot of places though so even if you're right it doesn't change the fact that lumping all Muslims together into a monolithic Islam isn't valid. khwarezm posted:I live in Ireland, which has had a long history of intense religiosity and slow progress on the LGBT front and I have to say that this is some serious whitewashing. Some of the most hardcore secularists and atheists I know tend to be queer people since they've seen that the biggest block against them generally came from the religious elements of the country. That's not to say that there are no religious gay people or anything but its usually not lost on people that progress on LGBT issues tended to correlate with the receding place of religion in this society. I didn't say that Christians could never be homophobic, I said that the gay rights movement focused on convincing people of our own dignity and letting them reconcile that with their faith rather than as a mass anti-Christian campaign. So I am skeptical when people wrap themselves in the flag of gay rights and slam Islam because while most gay people I know aren't very religious, I don't know any gay activists who spend their time attacking religion because gay rights activists are usually interested in affirming gay rights not tearing down other people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
What is in a religious text is almost irrelevant when compared to material considerations as to how people act. It's not an illegitimate criticism but it's extrapolated too far in terms of explanation, and worse if you want to talk about material considerations these same guys will often angrily claim you're defending Islam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Wow, then it sure is a good thing that I made explicitly clear that my criticisms of one part of a religion don't involve criticizing that entire religion or criticizing everyone who follows it! What "part" of Islam are you criticizing, then? I'm fairly sure the reason you're having a problem here is because you're using some wildly unconventional definition of the word "part", because as far as I know, a "part" is one part of a whole, directly and vitally connected to that whole to the point where criticism of the part also reflects poorly on the whole that the part is part of. That's why no one is understanding you - because criticizing "part" of Islam because of the Saudis' horrible beliefs makes about as much sense as criticizing "part" of evolution because of the Nazis' horrible beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ohio-seventh-grader-threatened-to-use-dads-gun-to-shoot-muslim-boy-he-called-son-of-isis/ quote:An Ohio seventh-grader is accused of threatening to shoot a Muslim classmate he called a terrorist and a “towel head.” 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What "part" of Islam are you criticizing, then? I'm fairly sure the reason you're having a problem here is because you're using some wildly unconventional definition of the word "part", because as far as I know, a "part" is one part of a whole, directly and vitally connected to that whole to the point where criticism of the part also reflects poorly on the whole that the part is part of. That's why no one is understanding you - because criticizing "part" of Islam because of the Saudis' horrible beliefs makes about as much sense as criticizing "part" of evolution because of the Nazis' horrible beliefs. The theory of evolution does not tell people who believe in it how to behave, so your comparison makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I admit I'm not a linguist or a philosopher, but I was under the impression that emotions were like, the bare bones example of the irrational. As logic would be of the rational. I'm not saying emotions are necessarily wrong or bad (although fearing/hating a vast group of people because of the actions of a few obviously is). I'm not really sure what a linguist would tell you, and a philosopher would only be able to report introspectively what emotions are. The rest of your post is you talking out of your rear end in a pseudo-intellectual way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's still legal in a lot of places though so even if you're right it doesn't change the fact that lumping all Muslims together into a monolithic Islam isn't valid. I'm not saying that all Muslims should be lumped together on the issue, but its a pretty low standard to set that Homosexual activity simply be legal. But even there, by and large Muslim majority countries don't meet that hurdle by a large margin. Some of the ones that do, like Turkey or Albania, have a history of state enforced secularism, often violently suppressing politicized religion. I would have to say that there does seem to be a problem with LGBT issues in the Muslim world in general, even if you compare it to christian countries most of the countries that can apply capital punishment to homosexuals are majority Muslim and have a heavily religiously influenced political and legal system. Is that Islamophobic? quote:I didn't say that Christians could never be homophobic, I said that the gay rights movement focused on convincing people of our own dignity and letting them reconcile that with their faith rather than as a mass anti-Christian campaign. The Gay rights movement, and other such movements also made sure that secular state structures remained intact and benefited from religion becoming a less important part of people's day to day lives. They didn't go out of their way to victimize Christians or anything but they welcomed and abetted religion being a thing that was kept in peoples homes and churches and out of the courthouses and capitals. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
PT6A posted:criticizing one element of a religion is not the same thing as criticizing the entirety of that religion. I don't understand why you need to make this detour? Why don't tackle the problems directly instead of making them rhetorically an inherent part of a thing that's inconceivably large?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:01
|
|
