Post removed

[Rebkeh]

1. Thanks for posting

I need to spend more time over at Common Dreams. There's always good reads there.

[guillaumeb]

4. A great resource. I recommend it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

124. Too bad they overlooked the fact the author is a homophobe. n/m

[Demit]

2. You have repeated two paragraphs here.

[guillaumeb]

3. The result of DU issues and an incomplete re-edit.

[closeupready]

5. See, this is why I no longer really participate in such discussions here.

It's about hate and fear, even with DU members, so there is ZERO point in attempting to discuss. This is NOT a discussion board; it is a message board which people use as a soapbox to bludgeon others into submission (irony is the fact that 'Islam' is Arabic for 'submission').

[guillaumeb]

6. Islam means both peace and submission.

Submission to the will of God.

I agree with your point as to attempts to discuss, but that applies to nearly everything here.

Witness the various Hillary=evil and Sanders=evil threads here.

But when I see racism and hatred promoted (under whatever linguistic cover), I like to point out the underlying racism and read the attempts at qualification and/or denial.

[TipTok]

48. Submission to God is creepy and incompatible with modern liberal values...

[guillaumeb]

51. How about killing for country?

[TipTok]

68. There are actual legitimate reasons for that...

There are none for killing in the name of the imaginary voice in your head.

[guillaumeb]

72. Please tell me the legitimate reason for the US invasion of Iraq?

Or choose a country, any country, that the US has invaded since 1945 and explain the legitimacy.

[TipTok]

74. I was just addressing your question...

You asked if there were any legitimate reasons to kill for country... No qualifiers...

If you want a discussion on one of the most complex political and military situations of the modern age, I suggest you take a community college course.

[guillaumeb]

76. You actually made a declarative statement.

I asked for examples of what you personally feel are legitimate uses of state violence.

[maxsolomon]

80. Repelling an Invasion, of course

as a specific example, the Iraqi Military had every right to use state violence to repel the US Invasion.

you are moving the goal posts asking for a defense of that invasion. you're not going to get it here, and you're not catching us in a contradiction.

[guillaumeb]

96. The goal posts are moved with each question or assertion.

But simplistic, racist stereotyping is a common thread that many Democrats also use.

[King_David]

154. Does Islam accept Gays and Lesbians as full participants in their

Culture and lifestyle as equals .

Because if the answer is no well then I am Islamaphobic and I say fuck them and anyone else that doesn't accept that.

I say any culture that doesn't accept Gays as equal and not as targets to kill is medieval and doesn't deserve a break.

That's my view , I don't submit.

[Nye Bevan]

7. If 30 Planned Parenthood doctors had been massacred last Tuesday,

and it turned out that the murderers had been radicalized in a particularly militant evangelical Christian sect, I imagine that sect would be receiving some negative attention and commentary at this point.

[Ex Lurker]

8. Exactly, and rightly so

Islam deserves just as much scrutiny, but that's deemed off limits by many on the left. Truth should be an affirmative defense against charges of Islamophobia.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. No, it shouldn't.

Hitler was a strong leader who reduced unemployment and build good roads.

It's possible to mislead quite effectively by carefully selecting some true statements and omitting others.

So the standard for "not Islamophobic" needs to be slightly higher than "not technically false".

[Ex Lurker]

25. If the left continues to ignore the problem

people like Trump will not, I assure you. We can present a rational solution, or be left behind as frightened people flock to demagogues. Shouting "Islamophobe!" at anyone who expresses legitimate concerns, or blaming the victims of terror, as did an Op Ed posted here yesterday, plays into every negative stereotype of the progressive movement.

[guillaumeb]

56. The problem is that historical background in the Middle East

is ignored by politicians who use war as a tool to promote colonialism. The US pretends to have interests in literally every area of the world, and defends those interests by invasion and brutality. And then some people wonder why do they hate us.

[Ex Lurker]

64. They hate us because we exist

and we are different than them. It's that simple. Yes, we have made mistakes, lots of them, which have exacerbated the problem, and allowed this ideology space to take root and grow.. But we did not create it. Not everything in the world is our fault, and not every non westerner is blameless. That is difficult for a lot of DUers to wrap their minds around. They are stuck in a 1960's paradigm which no longer exists, if it ever did.

[guillaumeb]

70. The US tried to depose Castro,

it deposed and killed Salvador Allende,
it deposed Mohammed Mossadegh,
it deposed and killed Khaddafi,
it interfered in Greece after the second World War to prevent a Communist government,
it invaded Vietnam, attacked Cambodia, and Thailand, and Korea,
it has interfered in nearly every South American country in the last 50 years.

The US and Europe have interfered in nearly every Middle Eastern country. I believe that many US citizens are truly unaware of how much the US has done to promote its Empire at the expense of other peoples freedom.

[1939]

149. I must have missed the invasion of Thailand

Between the 1961 Berlin Crisis, the 1962 Laotian Crisis, and the 1962 Cuban Crisis it must have just slipped my mind.

Rightly or wrongly, legitimate functioning governments in Korea in 1950 and in Vietnam 1961-1975 approved our sending troops to aid in their defense.

[Marr]

82. +1

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. Using the word "they" like that is dangerous

I'm far from the last to criticise Islam.

But if you want to do so - and especially if you want to be as violently critical as you're being - I think it's important make it explicit who you're referring to, and not to use language that could be taken to mean "all Muslims" unless you actually mean that.

Attaching this kind of open-ended "they" to an attack that applies at most to a minority of Muslims is at best extremely sloppy and potentially dangerous, and at worst broad-brushing that it would not be unreasonable to term Islamophobia - an overused word, yes, but not one without its fair applications.

[guillaumeb]

53. What is "truth" asked Pilate?

[guillaumeb]

9. But that rarely happens. Christianity is given a pass by the US media.

When abortion workers are murdered, or abortion clinic patients are intimidated, there is almost zero mention of religion as a motivating factor by the media. And in the rare cases where a religious motive is mentioned, there is no uproar against that particular religious group, nor is there a call for the leaders of the group to disavow violence and renounce the violent ones.What IS generally mentioned when talking about the motives of these murderers and harassers is that they are fervently pro-life.

Contrast that treatment of Christians with the regular calls in the media and by politicians from both sides that Muslims must continuously denounce terrorists who identify as Muslim.

And in Israel, when a settler murders a Palestinian or an Arab Israeli, a very frequent occurrence, there is no subsequent denunciation of Judaism as a religion of violence.

[6chars]

65. silly

[840high]

26. .^that x100

[Scootaloo]

116. The sect maybe

Probably not though, America loves its "lone wolf" christian terrorists unconnected to anyone or anything, always acting in isolation because implying there might be other crazy-ass violent Christians out there is bad for business. Start a thread on DU smearing Christians - all Christians, sect notwithstanding - for the actions of such a goon, and you would be in deep shit indeed! Because you know.. .there are VASTLY more christian posters here than there are Muslim posters, and so Christians can stand up and say "Wait a fucking minute" while Muslims are just a punching bag around here.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

139. America loves its lone wolf theory because

It seems Christo-terrorists can only rustle up one, maybe two wingnuts at a time to carry out Jebus's work while 9/11, London, Paris, Brussels etc. there were a dozen assholes lining up to band together and die for fake sky daddy, along with a bunch of hood wearing dipshits after the fact sending out videos celebrating the fact unsuspecting infidels were killed while on DU a couple of fucking hillbillies from Peoria on Twitter praising Eric Rudolph is enough to call out NATO, the Justice Dept. and The FBI.

Maybe Islam's recruiting is just better. Maybe they have cookies while Bob Dear had just bad BO. Either way, the actual comparison of the numbers is not on your side, Scooty.

[cheapdate]

131. But that's not really the point, is it?

The point is that with Islam, we don't always distinguish or recognize sects.

[leftynyc]

10. Spare me the whining

If it were Christians blowing up people on a daily/weekly/monthly basis, nobody here would say boo about bashing the messages in Christianity that are considered violent. People are getting sick to death of the double standards. Just another hand wringing piece to prove Bill Maher right.

[guillaumeb]

11. Are you in that 49% referenced in the article? eom

And did you regularly denounce the Catholic IRA members who committed so much violence in Northern Ireland?

Or the Protestant terrorists who also committed so much violence in Northern Ireland?

[leftynyc]

13. Religions aren't bad

It's the imbeciles that use them to justify their repulsive behavior that's bad. Are the vast majority of terrorist acts today being committed by those using their own perverted view of Islam - yes.

[trotsky]

15. I dunno, a religion that has in its sacred texts...

orders to murder homosexuals, treat women as second class citizens, keep people as slaves, etc. - I'd kind of think that religion at least has a distinct possibility to be bad.

[guillaumeb]

17. Are you referencing Judaism?

[trotsky]

30. You can't be sure, can you?

[leftynyc]

138. And which Jewish state

has laws against being gay, or have the death penalty on the books for being gay? You're skirting the REAL difference. Only Muslim or non-Western states have death penalties for things like being gay, for blasphemy, for apostasy. This is why I have zero problem proclaiming that western values are superior. Are there Christians who kill in the name of their G-d? Yes, lunatics that are put in jail or locked up for being deranged. The laws don't protect their lunacy.

[leftynyc]

27. Depends on if the followers

use it to actually kill homosexuals and treat women badly or use the religious texts to make law. Some religions go through an enlightenment, some don't.

[trotsky]

31. But yet those horrid verses are still there.

Right in the text, waiting for anyone to latch onto them. Because, after all, the text is the word of a god. Despite an "enlightenment" for Christian religion, there is still no shortage of people who embrace some of the worst in the bible.

[leftynyc]

36. Are there still Christians

that use their religious text to sell their daughters? To kill their neighbors for breaking the Sabbath or wearing two different kinds of fibers? Are they using religion to condone slavery? Are they killing people who leave their religion or for blasphemy? Those seem like the worst parts of the bible to me and it seems enlightenment has taken care of that. That they're still there seems to me like a bullshit form of moral relativism. They're ALWAYS going to be there - books don't cease to exist. It's what people do with them or in their name that matters today. Just how long should be sit back and wait until Islam goes through the same? Meanwhile there is a very disturbing amount of Muslim countries that have laws on the books that you should die for leaving Islam. Are you okay with that? Are you willing to sit by silently until they realize that's not acceptable?

[trotsky]

63. Answers

1. Are there still Christians that use their religious text to sell their daughters?
- Yeah, those wacko Mormon groups still practicing polygamy would definitely fit in that category. Daughters are essentially given as payment to other men.

2. To kill their neighbors for breaking the Sabbath or wearing two different kinds of fibers?
- Pretty close. http://aattp.org/christian-beheads-roommate-because-he-was-practicing-witchcraft-religious-right-silent/

3. Are they using religion to condone slavery?
- Yep. Perhaps you've heard of them: the KKK, the Christian Identity movement, and Aryan Nation.

4. Are they killing people who leave their religion or for blasphemy?
- Another yes. See the example in #2 for just one.

My whole point is those nasty bits are STILL THERE. You may think that everyone has agreed to ignore them, but the fact of the matter is, that's not the case.

I'm not defending Islam here, or singling out Christianity - I'm condemning all religions that continue to hold up a text as "holy" or the word of their god that contains atrocious things.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. You have a story about a roommate murder vs 10 Nations which execute LGBT and 'heretics'.

I condemn them all as well, but this does not erase the facts. The author of the piece linked in the OP, for example, speaks of gay people in terrible terms which if used against Muslims would offend him and make DU froth at the mouth and fall over backwards. But it's gay people he bashes so he's cited on DU as an expert on other people's bigotry.

[trotsky]

146. Well of course but when someone is claiming that nothing like those things happens...

with Christianity, even small examples prove that claim wrong.

Heck, let's look at the Catholic Church and how its teachings on homosexuality (that it's "intrinsically disordered&quot harm the human race, right? Mainstream Christian church meets "tolerant" Islam. At least they agree on hating the gays!

[leftynyc]

137. Uh - no

The traditional mormons have thrown that polygamous group out and did it a very long time ago. A lunatic killing someone is not the same as a minister, from a pulpit (not sure that's the right word, I'm not a Christian) saying to kill the infidels. The kkk and the others are NOT doing that from any Christian alter. Are you really comparing the roommate thing to HAVING LAWS ON THE BOOKS allowing the state to kill for blasphemy - they didn't throw that lunatic a parade. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to convey some warped form of moral relativism. The laws against blasphemy and apostasy are on the books in these countries - these penalties are carried out BY THE STATE - not by some misguided, probably mentally ill, schmuck.

[trotsky]

145. I've got news for you: that polygamous group (and others like it) are still doing it.

Christian preachers are preaching hatred against gays. The KKK and other groups believe they are Christian - who are you to say they're not? And now you're moving the goalposts. The whole point is that Islam isn't particularly unique when it comes to the specific examples you gave. I have proven that.

(Oh and there's a blasphemy law on the books in Roman Catholic Ireland, BTW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland)

[leftynyc]

147. You're STILL not getting the difference

The difference being whatever the kkk and so called Christian preachers say, it's NOT backed up by laws on the books. When there are laws on the books that give you the death penalty for leaving a religion, or for being gay, or for adultery in a western country, then I'll pay attention. What piddly assed churches do is meaningless when they aren't backed by LAWS.

[trotsky]

148. That's because you are now moving the goalposts.

Go back and re-read your post #36. You said NOTHING about "laws on the books" for any of those offenses EXCEPT for apostasy. You only asked if there were Christians who did those things.

I answered your challenge, and now rather than admit error, you're changing the parameters of what satisfies your demands. Sorry, I'm not going to play a rigged game.

[leftynyc]

152. Uh - no

No western countries has a law on the books about any punishment for leaving the religion. None. And by the way, the last time Ireland punished anyone for blasphemy was in 1855 and was found to be against their constitution in 1999. AND the penalty was NEVER death. If you think that proves your point, you're beyond hope.

[trotsky]

153. Goalposts.

Bye.

[guillaumeb]

16. I would suggest reading, or rereading, the article.

Perception does not always correspond to reality.

[leftynyc]

28. I read it thoroughly the first time

and rolled my eyes and scoffed through 90% of it. I'll pass on a second reading. Perhaps you don't link a perverted form of Islam to these terrorists, I certainly do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I am, and I did.

It's a deeply misleading comparison, though.

The IRA, UDF etc committed terrorism for reasons orthogonal to their religion. Catholicism and Protestantism were gang badges, nothing more.
ISIS, Al-Quaeda, etc commit terrorism because of their religion (yes, that's an oversimplification, but not very much of a one).

[guillaumeb]

23. Your IRA/UDF comparison applies equally well to the various terror groups

that currently operate in the Middle East. All of these groups use violence as a tactic, much as the US uses violence as a tactic. And religion is often used as a group identifier.

The main difference between terror committed by individual actors and state terror is that state terror takes place on a much larger scale. And state terror uses the religion of patriotism.

[riderinthestorm]

69. NI was about British occupation, not a religious conflict.

The actions in Brussels is about killing the infidel which is definitely religious.

[guillaumeb]

95. Ireland was divided and Scottish Protestants were brought in

and displaced Catholics. It was religious and a colonial occupation. The European colonial occupiers of the Middle East were/are of a different religion. The same dynamic.

[riderinthestorm]

97. You compared the ISIS attack in Brussels to the NI conflict

they are not the "same dynamic" except by some very tortured logic.

[guillaumeb]

100. Violence was employed, and is employed, as a response to state violence.

The difference is that in Ireland, Catholicism was not blamed for the violence. and Catholicism, and Irish society, was not considered incompatible with Western values. No tortured logic employed here.

[snagglepuss]

78. The Troubles in N, Ireland was a political conflict

not a religious one.

[trotsky]

14. Just one question:

Are there ANY hadiths or verses in the Koran that could possibly be interpreted to condone violence? Yes or no.

[guillaumeb]

18. Is there any belief system or philosophy that has not been used

to justify violence?

[trotsky]

29. Please note, that has nothing to do with what I asked.

I would appreciate a yes or no answer.

[guillaumeb]

47. My answer to your "question" is contained in my answer to you. eom

[trotsky]

57. No, it isn't.

Because in your "answer" is the assumption that the teachings of Islam are 100% pure and good and that anyone who does otherwise has simply "used" it for nefarious purposes.

Are there hadiths and/or verses that could be interpreted to condone violence? Yes or no.

[Herman4747]

34. Check out "Jainism" n/t

[leftynyc]

37. Are you going to continue

to refuse to answer that very simple question without trying to deflect? Your refusal to answer makes this whole OP look ridiculous.

[guillaumeb]

49. Your earlier response that you rejected everything that you read

in the article as you were reading it tells me all I need to know about your feelings regarding liberal Islamophobes. As do your posts in previous threads that simplistically attempt to hold a belief system "guilty" for the actions of a minuscule subset of believers.

Like holding all atheists responsible for the actions of Josef Stalin.

[leftynyc]

52. No - nothing like that at all

stalin didn't kill in the name of no g-d. When the terrorists stop yelling allah akbar before they blow themselves and everyone around them into little pieces, then you may have a point. And you STILL haven't answered the question. And for the record, I hold all "holy" books in the same amount of disdain. But these days only one of them is the basis for laws that disgust me to my core.

[Marr]

84. More like holding eugenics responsible for Hitler's treatment of the Jews.

In other words, pretty reasonable. There's a straight line from one to the other.

[guillaumeb]

112. Hitler's treatment of the Jews did not represent eugenics.

Eugenics is attempting to improve the breed, so to speak. What Hitler attempted was genocide.

[Marr]

126. I'm amazed anyone would argue this point.

The Nazi extermination of the the Jews was very much based on eugenic ideals of 'racial hygiene'.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/deadmed.html

They wanted to breed a sort of 'nordic ideal' as the German norm, yes-- and exterminating 'undesirable' strains of humanity was the other side of the coin.

[trotsky]

109. I can point to verses and hadiths that condone or command violence.

Can you point to anything in the definition of atheism that does the same?

I'll wait.

[guillaumeb]

114. Stalin was an atheist.

He was a mass murderer. Does his mass murder define the behavior of every individual atheist? No.

Richard Dawkins is a rude, condescending elitist with pathetic arguments regarding faith. Does this make every atheist a condescending elitist? No.

I can point to various US Doctrines that justify your 250 year history of war and interference in the affairs of other countries. Does that condemn all that is American?

[trotsky]

118. Yup, Stalin was both.

And people have lots of opinions on Dawkins.

However, since there are absolutely no foundational documents or teachings on which atheism is based (other than the statement "I do not believe in gods&quot , there is nothing on which to base murdering people or being rude.

Yet there are lots of Koran verses and hadiths that command or condone violence. So there you are. You've lost this argument. Over and over and over. Only you are unable to see it. I'd love to continue laughing at you though, so please proceed.

[Albertoo]

19. Islamophobia is a misleading term, which tries to disqualify criticism of Islam

Phobia has two meanings
• a strong dislike or fear, or
• an irrational fear
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

The definition which supporters of Islam try to push is the second one, which tries to conflate criticism of Islam with irrational bigotry. Nice tactic, but does it match reality?

In the same way, you try to disqualify those who would mention the potential zones of "supposed incompatibility of Islam with Western values". Again, is there no incompatibility?

Between mainstream Islam as practiced where it has free rein (in Muslim countries) and the secular practice of western democracies, I see areas of opposition/incompatibility:
freedoms of speech (blasphemy), of religion (apostasy), sexual (non marital sex, LGBT)

Now, given the very real punishments mandated by Islam against people exercising these progressive freedoms, a secular Liberal would have reasonable cause to dislike Islam, i.e. a reasonable islamophobia. While radical forms of Islam (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, etc) should cause more than a dislike, but a downright fear.

The bigots are the misguided individuals who, out or racism or nationalism, condemn all Muslims because of their religion. But that bigotry should not exonerate Islam, the religion, from criticism. That criticism should be polite, reasoned and respectful. No hatred involved.

[guillaumeb]

21. I take exception to your logic:

You are conflating a belief system, in this case Islam, with violent acts perpetrated by individuals who justify their violence as being based on their beliefs.

Second, when you wrote,

Between mainstream Islam as practiced where it has free rein (in Muslim countries) and the secular practice of western democracies, I see areas of opposition/incompatibility:
freedoms of speech (blasphemy), of religion (apostasy), sexual (non marital sex, LGBT)

you could substitute Christianity for Islam and many Southern states for Muslim countries and make much the same point.

And I could use the 250 year US history of violence, intolerance, genocide, misogyny, and slavery to denounce liberal capitalism.

[Albertoo]

32. The proof is in the pudding

My reasoning relied on the bulk of Islam as it is practiced - mainstream "Muslim countries"

The freedoms I mentioned are denied in ALL Muslim countries. Only the degrees vary.
These freedoms are available in western democracies, even in Southern US States.

As for Christianity, western democracies are secular. As annoying as Christianity can be, it doesn't control the judiciary,while Islam claims the control of the judiciary in Muslim countries.

[brooklynite]

22. My dislike of Islam is perfectly rational...as is my dislike of other religions...

Any religion who's scripture is 1) presumed to come with god's endorsement and 2) advocates violence or abuse which 3) can be used by an adherent to justify criminal activities is deserving of my dislike.

What I DON'T due is transfer that dislike to everyone who professes to believe in the religion, since my experience is that most people know very little about the religion they profess, and don't generally live by it's tenets.

[guillaumeb]

24. An excellent reply. Does your dislike apply equally to state religions?

Patriotism is a prime motivator for violence and oppression.

[Albertoo]

35. You always try to hide Islam under other faulty systems (Christianity, Nationalism, etc)

Your OP compares Islam to secular western democracies.
In that framework, the practice of mainstream Islam shows severe faults:
namely the curtailing of several freedoms which I would have thought dear to any progressive
How a progressive can sweep under the rug all these terrible oppressions of free thought or sexual behavior amazes me.

[Ex Lurker]

38. Too many progressives are genetically incapable of criticizing anything emanating from

the Third World, no matter how egregious.

[clarice]

43. You know Lurker, that was one of the truest things that I've ever read here. Congrats.nt

[Albertoo]

133. It's the moment of inertia of anticolonialism

It was the progressive stance to support the liberation movement against colonialism. Now, long after the independences, it ossified into an acquired reflex of systemic defense of the value system of developing countries, no matter what.

What I don't get is the special privilege of Islam. It's perfectly OK to criticize Hinduism with its caste system., it's much more difficult to criticize Islam with its sexism and homophobia.

[guillaumeb]

41. My OP talks about Islamophobia and how it is not confined to the GOP.

And you are comparing (and criticizing) governing systems in other countries and using that comparison/criticism as an excuse to attack Islam.

If you wish to criticize how the practice of a belief system compares with the ideal of a system that is one thing. The US claims to respect and promote equality and freedom, but the exceptions to this ideal are abundant. But none of the liberal Islamophobes suggest abandoning the US system because it is imperfect.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

60. Some of us refuse to use the term Islamophobia

I simply hate all religion that treats women as second class creatures.

So, yeah, I hate fundamentalist Islam.

I hate fundamentalist Christianity.

I hate fundamentalist Judaism.

Got it?

[guillaumeb]

62. Points for consistency.

Believers can be inconsistent.

The US also treated women and non-whites as second class. And that continues, just not as overtly.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

66. But I don't hate the other two as much. :)

Since they are several hundred years ahead of Islam.

It's not Islamophobic to hope that large groups of backwards believing people don't begin to inhabit my city. I wouldn't want my city to be overtaken by "lily white" fundamentalist Mormon sects anymore than I'd want it overrun by "white to brown" fundamentalist Muslims.

It's not a race issue.

[clarice]

86. Go Girl!!! nt

[Albertoo]

132. WHAT?? the islamic freedom restrictions are not an accident, they are text mandated

If you wish to criticize how the practice of a belief system compares with the ideal of a system

The cruel absence of some basic freedoms under mainstream Islam is not the emanation of some cranky loon who would have perverted the texts, it's the result of literally hundreds of thousands of religious scholars over centuries trying their best to apply the religious texts.

Where do you see the "ideal of a system" whose religious texts mention that women are inferior to men? Texts which explicitly declare LGBT people targets?

Besides, again, your misplaced use of emotional words: where do I 'attack' Islam? I merely answered your OP where you stated that Islam (mainstream Islam for practical purposes) is compatible with progressive secular western rules. Just observing real life should tell you it is just simply not the case. Unless you are referring to an idealised Islam whose violent, misogynistic, homophobic and imperialist passages would be neutralized.

PS: one question, if I may: I get the feeling from your way of writing that you yourself are not a Muslim. If true, why do you invest yourself such passion to play down the very obvious shortcomings of the religious doctrine of Islam? If I may venture a hypothesis, you probably feel you are defending the Muslims. Not sure it's best achieved by denying the reality of the bad aspects of Islam. In the same way that it should not be an aggression n Christians to point out the failings of a doctrine of personal atonement. To mention to Jews that they are not a chosen people would not be antisemitism either.

[Dems to Win]

33. If you are not a critic of Islam, you are not a liberal

It's not irrational to be disdainful of a religion that treats women as second class citizens, calls for gays to be killed, and demands the death penalty for apostates.

[clarice]

44. *APPLAUSE PLEASE" well done Dems. nt

[guillaumeb]

50. If you are not a critic of the Israeli government,

a government that practices apartheid, that maintains a double system of justice, that steals land from its neighbors,
you are not a liberal.

Silly for silly.

[oberliner]

58. Most liberals are critical of the Israeli government

In fact, there are numerous liberal and progressive organizations devoted to making more people aware of the issues with the Israel government to which you allude.

There ought to be similar numbers of liberal and progressive organizations devoted to making people aware of the non-progressive and non-liberal elements of Islam without being accused of "Islamophobia".

[guillaumeb]

61. If you wish to talk about Palestinian intolerance and violence I am willing.

I would certainly not hold up any current Middle Eastern country as a model of democracy and tolerance. But US and European interference in the region has contributed massively to the present instability. Syria is currently undergoing the same violence that the US visited on Iraq, on Yemen, through Saudi proxies, on Iran in the 1950s, and in most of the region.

Colonialists resent any attempt on the part of the colonized to break free of their colonial masters.

[clarice]

89. blah blah... but what about the issue at hand?. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. If you are not a critic of Islam or the Israeli government, you are adopting an illiberal position.

Similar, but not quite the same thing.

[JI7]

136. what the fuck does Israel have to do with islamic attacks in europe ?

[ericson00]

140. not a lame deflection of anything

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

87. Yes! There's a serious disconnect here

I. DO. NOT. RESPECT. FUNDAMENTALIST. RELIGIONS.

INCLUDING. AND. ESPECIALLY ISLAM.

[Democat]

142. Women's rights and gay rights are secondary to not offending anyone

Are you new to DU?

[oberliner]

39. Author of this piece is: Mohamad Elmasry

Famous for this exchange:

COREN: So everyone in Israel and anyone and everyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target?

ELMASRY: Yes, I would say.

And holds this liberal and progressive view of homosexuality:

"It is clear that homosexuality is forbidden and if someone wants to insist on doing it, they will be held accountable in the end."

[Coventina]

42. Thanks for this info. Very telling. n/t

[guillaumeb]

45. Oberliner, if I quoted to you just a few of Benjamin Netanyahu's comments

about Palestinians being targets, or mowing the grass as an expression for slaughtering Palestinians, or talked of the many ways that Israel is an apartheid state, would that be a reason to suggest that all Israelis should be treated as the enemy?

If I suggested that the problem in Israel was aggressive Zionism combined with chauvinism, I would not also say that all Israelis are guilty. All are not responsible for the actions of a few. That is my point, and seems to me to be partly the point of the author.

[oberliner]

54. Everyone knows Netanyahu is a right-wing extremist

They should know that about the author of the OP you posted as well.

With respect to the broader issues raised in the OP, obviously anyone who blames all Muslims for the terrorist attacks in Belgium is simply a bigot.

On the other hand, it is not in any way "phobic" to look at Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity, or Scientology) and say that it is a philosophy consisting of a bunch of fairy tales centered around the belief in a make-believe sky deity which, in places, advocate for violence under certain circumstances.

Certainly they have all been responsible for (and continue to be responsible for) discrimination against homosexuals, for example.

[guillaumeb]

59. Agreed. Bigotry comes in many forms.

Nearly every religion has been the object of bigoted behavior over the centuries. But blaming all Muslims, or Islam itself, for violence in the world is just as reprehensible as blaming the Jews, or Judaism, for violence.

There needs to be a focus on what causes the violence, and what causes people to respond with violence. And often the roots of violence are found in colonialism and state violence.

[trotsky]

71. Who on DU has blamed "all Muslims" for anything?

That's been your standard tactic for a long time now - you've been called out on it repeatedly, only to see the same charge arise after every new Islamic terror attack.

There are teachings in Islam that not only condone violence, but *order* it and sanctify it. I am extremely grateful that MOST Muslims don't take those teachings seriously, or like many Christians do with similar teachings in their religion, wave them off as products of another time.

But there are some Muslims who DO take those teachings, hadiths, and verses very seriously. Those are the terrorists.

[guillaumeb]

75. Calls to close the borders, or profile all Muslims, or talk about a supposed cultural

inability to embrace democracy are frequent here. As are comments that Islam itself is to blame. Blaming the belief system that is Islam is one way to blame all Muslims for the actions of individuals.

Code words evolve to meet social needs, but the dog will still hear the whistle.

Violent people can always find a justification for violence.

As to terrorism, are drone pilots who kill innocent people terrorists?
Is a President who orders drone strikes to be carried out in a civilian area a terrorist?
Was Lt. Calley a terrorist?
Was Timothy MacVeigh a terrorist?
Was the man who killed Dr. Tiller a terrorist?

[trotsky]

105. Yet none of those are the same as blaming all Muslims.

The Koran and plenty of hadiths contain calls to violence. There is no effort required to "find a justification." It's in the religion. Right there. I don't care about any of your lame attempts to change the subject. There is violence in the foundational document of the religion. There is violence found in the teachings of its early scholars. Again, I am thankful not many Muslims give much credence to those things, BUT THEY ARE THERE. Covering your eyes as you do, pretending there's absolutely nothing wrong with the religion and that it's just people who are unjustifiably "corrupting" the religion, is to IGNORE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[guillaumeb]

110. Presuming that you are a US citizen,

how often do you apologize to the First Peoples for what your ancestors did? Do you bear a collective blood guilt?

The history of the US is a history of constant violence directed against nearly every nation on earth. How often do you as a US citizen apologize to the peoples of the world for what your government has done?

And please stop with the silly straw man arguments. If you can find a statement from me justifying the evil that some people do in the name of religion we can have that argument. My point, as should have been obvious, is that there is some crude stereotyping at DU regarding Islam and Muslims collectively.

A certain number of these who stereotype are, shall we say, militant atheists who never miss a chance to attack belief and believers.

[trotsky]

113. I don't expect peace-loving Muslims to apologize for anything.

I just want an acknowledgement that religion IS part of the problem. Especially when that religion's foundational documents and teachings from its scholars contain specific commands for violence.

Why is it that whenever you paint yourself into a corner, you pull out the red herrings and the straw men and every other possible logical fallacy to try and distract from the fact that you refuse to answer a very simple question?

[font size=+2]Are there ANY hadiths or verses in the Koran that could possibly be interpreted to condone violence? Yes or no[/font]

[guillaumeb]

115. You actually built your straw man in your previous post.

And your simple question is too simple by far.

As is your evasion of your collective responsibility as a US citizen for all the violence that the US has done.

[trotsky]

117. Nope, sorry, all the fallacies are yours.

I told you, I don't expect all Muslims to have "collective responsibility" for the actions of the few extremists. So your continued attempts to try and expect me to accept blame for the actions of the government are weak and pathetic.

What I do expect is for everyone to recognize that the foundational documents of the religion DO contain calls to violence.

Many, many Muslims recognize this. Why can't you?

[oberliner]

73. But a progressive can and should be critical of un-progressive belief systems

If an Orthodox Jewish or observant Muslim man refuses to sit next to a woman on a plane, his refusal is exclusively based on his belief in Judaism or Islam. I can blame Judaism or Islam for that. I can say that someone who is an Orthodox Jew or an observant Muslim has a view of men and women that I strongly object to, and they hold this view because of their belief in their particular religion. It should not be off-limits to be critical of religions for fear of being seen as a bigot. There is no bigotry involved in progressives pointing out and objecting to elements of religious beliefs that run counter to their own values.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

91. Ah, good, I can dismiss this even faster than I normally would

The author of the piece is a full fledged bigot, basing such bigotry on his religion, hence why he's so quick to shame "liberals" who would rightly find his views as repugnant as those of Pat Robertson.

[clarice]

40. You see no connective thread between the two? nt

[guillaumeb]

46. Do you see a connective thread between Adolf Hitler and modern German

nativists?

Do you see a connective link between any violent white male and all white males?

[clarice]

83. Nice dodge, but that was not the discussion at hand. nt

[guillaumeb]

98. The discussion was originally about racism and religious hatred.

[clarice]

90. Waiting. nt

[Yo_Mama]

55. Except it wasn't irrational. It was ISIS. Nor is it just ISIS.

Al-Sisi, January 2015 to Al-Azhar:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2015/01/01/egypts-sisi-islamic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

When people go nuts and riot and threaten murder in countries in the Middle East because of some cartoons published by Danish newspapers, the world looks and notes and draws its own conclusions.

When individuals are hacked to death in Bangladesh because of their opinions (bloggers, converts, critics of radicalism) and Africans are murdered by the hundreds each month by Muslims, when the violent incidents in Egypt are too many detail, when there is hardly a country in the world (if any) with any substantial population that isn't experiencing Muslim attacks on its population - it isn't irrational.

Al-Sisi is right. There isn't one Islam any more. There aren't even the traditional two. There are now many splinter groups, and a very substantial number of Muslims world-wide demand submission to Islam from even non-Muslims. Islam is at war with itself; a portion of Islam is at war with the west.

When the Aum Shinrikyo cult turned murderous in Japan, Japan suppressed it. That isn't possible with the murderous cults of Islam, so naturally and rationally people want to limit exposure. This isn't a small group. At least 150 million Muslims worldwide hold viewpoints that are completely incompatible with life in the west.

[Prism]

67. I can criticize Islam and still treat Muslims as human beings

Why is it always all or none in this discussion?

I loathe Islam. I think it a regressive, backwards religion that oppresses far more people than it helps. I think, culturally, much of contemporary Islam is incompatible with the 21st century liberal West. I think the radical components are a major problem that the West must grapple with rather than bury it's head in the sand.

However.

I also treat my Muslim neighbors upstairs with the same respect and courtesy I would any other person. I have never mentioned my thinking to them, and it has never crossed my mind to preach to them. Nor has it crossed their mind to preach at me, a gay man. I will never treat them differently, view them with suspicion, or single them out for abuse. They are my neighbors, just like every other neighbor in my building.

See?

I can hold both these thoughts at the exact same time. It really isn't that difficult.

[romanic]

77. Same here.

I spend a lot of my time in Dearborn, MI (the largest Arab-American city pop. wise) eating out at their restaurants and businesses. I've worked and hung out with many Muslim co-workers who treat me with respect (as do I) just as I expect any other person to do. I may think their faith is backwards but I'm not going to go off on them when they face so much discrimination as it is. I too don't expect them to try to convert me to Islam either.

I don't understand this line of thinking that we have to keep our criticisms of Islam to ourselves; why? It is pointless and dangerous to do so.

[guillaumeb]

99. Excellent example of tolerance.

Should be the rule rather than the exception.

[Maedhros]

104. Some people shore up their self-esteem by sneering at others whom they believe

to be lesser somehow: lesser in wisdom, lesser in stature, lesser in knowledge.

Religion is an especially juicy target for these people, because they can show themselves to be superior to entire congregations of people by belittling their beliefs. I find the entire exercise to be sad...

[trotsky]

120. Precisely.

So why is this guy having such a hard time understanding how this is done?

[CrawlingChaos]

79. Excellent post - thank you guillaumeb

Despite your well-made points, all you have to do is say the word 'Islamophobia' here at DU and a full-on display of it unfolds before your eyes.

There are many here who will try to shout down any nuanced discussion of the topic, and always, always ignore the sociopolitical motivations of terrorism in favor of demonizing Muslims. All part of a pattern that leads to more war, more hate, more violence.

I do applaud you for trying.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

92. Care to discuss the "nuance" of this author's previous quote?

Regarding the issue of how Islam views homosexuals, Elmasry stated in 2003 that: "There is no need to revise the Qur'an or the teaching of Islam on the issue of homosexuality. It is clear that homosexuality is forbidden and if someone wants to insist on doing it, that is their personal decision. They [homosexuals] will be held accountable in the end [by God on the Day of Judgement]."

Sorry, I will not be shamed by a pig with a vested interested in shielding his religion from liberal criticism.

[guillaumeb]

103. The quote represents one persons opinion.

An opinion that many Americans share. It is not nuanced in any way. What makes you think that I agree with what the author said?

And if some Americans talk about homosexuality as a sin, are all Americans culpable? Must all Americans constantly denounce this type of bigotry to avoid sharing blame? Because that is what some havbe asked of Muslims.

[trotsky]

121. Do you agree with him?

You are presenting this person's words as something that we should all heed.

Do you agree that "There is no need to revise the Qur'an or the teaching of Islam on the issue of homosexuality. It is clear that homosexuality is forbidden..."?

Do you think Islam forbids homosexuality? YES or NO

[font size=+4]YES[/font] or [font size=+4]NO[/font]

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

122. DU as a community frequently, no DAILY, expresses disgust at "The American Way"

As well as fascist Christian behavior. I've never seen you pipe in with a "not all Americans" or "not all Christians" shame on you all article when just today there are literally a dozen threads angry at Christo-fascists in the state legislatures of NC and GA. You only bristle when it's about Islam's backwards beliefs and immediately accuse liberals of "Islamophobia".

The opinion of the author is repugnant, and I do not respect it, nor the "holy book" that touts it. Is that "phobic"? I don't care if it is. Fuck him and his call to be given a pass. The article is as much garbage as Donald Trump bemoaning that he and his sect of racists supporters are called out as such.

[Bluenorthwest]

128. You are citing that bigot as an expert on how bigoted everyone elses is. You present him as

legitimate. If a person said about Muslims what he says about LGBT you would pass out with fury. But he says it about LGBT so you think that's ok and you cite him as an authority on prejudice. It's disgusting.

[guillaumeb]

101. Thank you. We know that this type of crude stereotyping represents

a minority, but a loud one that receives much media attention.

I find many of the arguments here to be ahistorical at best, racist at worst.

[Marrah_G]

81. Impossible to discuss religion on DU

Best to just whistle and walk away.

[guillaumeb]

102. If I could have discussed gun ownership in a religious context,

that might be even louder.

[ericson00]

85. this:

But it would be wrong to view Islamophobia as a strictly conservative phenomenon. Polling data indicate that 49 percent of Democrats hold unfavourable views of Islam.

what do you expect as more people die with the last words they hear being "Allahu Akbar?"

[guillaumeb]

106. Presuming that you are a US citizen,

how often have you personally apologized to a Japanese citizen for the atomic horror that was visited on the hundreds of thousands of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

30,000 Americans die every year because of gun violence. Only a tiny fraction of that number are killed by members of ISIL. More people are killed in Pakistan by US drones than have been killed in Europe.

[Marrah_G]

107. And also it is worth noting that many of the issues that people have are due to

much of Islam holding views that are quite contrary to progressive issues that many of us have been fighting to change for a long time.

Women's rights, LGBT rights, religious rights, human rights, and the list goes on. But it is harder and harder to discuss any of that in regards to Muslim countries without automatically being labeled as someone who hates Muslims. I certainly don't dislike Muslim people, but I do hate many of the views their religion has. I also feel the same way about the Catholic church.

Ugh... I've written far more then I intended. I think I will go take a nap while I get roasted.

[ericson00]

108. well said. no, beautifully said

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

93. A quote from the author on homosexuality

Regarding the issue of how Islam views homosexuals, Elmasry stated in 2003 that: "There is no need to revise the Qur'an or the teaching of Islam on the issue of homosexuality. It is clear that homosexuality is forbidden and if someone wants to insist on doing it, that is their personal decision. They [homosexuals] will be held accountable in the end [by God on the Day of Judgement]."

Yup, I'd want to shield my bigotry from "liberal" criticism too.

[trotsky]

111. Yuck.

Pathetic to have to read stuff from a bigot like that on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

127. He's being cited by the OP as an expert on other people's bigotry.

If he was linking to a person who said all of those things (he's said plenty) about any other minority group he'd get his ass handed to him by DU.

[trotsky]

144. Great observation. n/t

[romanic]

135. Eww.

But not surprising. Seems like every group gets thrown under the bus to defend Islam. :/

[bhikkhu]

119. My unfavorable opinion of Islam is limited to women's rights and education

...on both points, islamic cultures in the middle east (it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the religion itself) are backward.

(on edit - gay rights too. I should have put that there in the first place, but I think I saw so much institutionalized and public discrimination here I almost don't expect better elsewhere).

[Bluenorthwest]

123. The author is one nasty homophobic religious hate speaker named Mohamed Elmasry

I assume it's the Canadian bigot here calling other people bigots. Shameful to such persons cited as authorities on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. I'd like to point out that the OP does not name that author and attempted to covertly introduce

this antisemitic, homophobic source on DU as a legitimate critic of the left on the subject of bigotry. That repugnant stuff is getting to be the stock in trade and definition of DU culture.

[rollin74]

130. the article was written by a Jew-hating homophobe

[grossproffit]

134. Why am I not surprised by this.

[Democat]

143. As long as he's not a Christian, it's ok

Check DU rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. Jew hating homophobes are popular on DU.

Those bigotries are a path to DU celebrity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. Democrats rate Muslims just slightly above atheists

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/



But we don't find people writing articles about 'liberal atheistophobia'.

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Why does DU allow anti gay, anti-semitic authors to be cited as experts on bigotry?

nt