Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@betaboy said:
A strong critique of religion is one thing. But most 'critics' of Islam are racists in disguise, nothing more. Affleck made that very clear - he correctly outed them as racists and bigots.
Hmm. I don't see how holding people responsible for their behavior is 'racist'. There are ethnic Middle Easterners committing atrocities, mostly on their own people.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Hamsaka I think it's a problem of scope. Even people talking about high criminal activity, gun violence, and poverty in urban zones (in America) have been called racist, because they're mostly populated by "black" people. That may be the furthest thing from someone's mind when they bring such issues up, but it's hard to anticipate how others will take what you say (theory of mind and such; people attach motivations to what you say).
To criticize behaviors and religious doctrines can land you in the same predicament if it begins to seem like you're painting all Muslims and Muslim countries with the same brush. The solution is to focus on specific problems and not generalize (at least that's what I'd propose).
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I agree @Toraldris, and important facts or ideas shouldn't have to be kept silent because someone else's theory of mind will bend and twist it. Their theory of mind needs to catch up with the facts. Apparently this CAN happen. My home state voted in gay marriage and legal weed :buck: which you gotta admit is evidence people can be pressured into letting go of their sacred cows. Either that or a bunch died off and left a different class of voters .
What do you mean by it being a problem of scope? I get what you are saying about the particular . . . difficulties in discussing problems of criminal activity and poverty in urban zones because of the higher numbers of 'blacks' and browns.
I feel quite confident I am not racist, and being called racist for pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS bad behavior being perpetrated by members of an ethnic group doesn't make me racist. I decide if I am racist, isn't that my responsibility (I'm preaching to the choir, I know)? Ideally, I ought not to be rattled into silence no matter what I am labeled by others, and I get that sense about Harris who is often accused of bigotry and racism because he's been quite outspoken. What IS a racist? A racist is as a racist does. I don't 'get' that Harris is 'doing racism'. Buying into him being racist based upon his harsh criticism of Islam is intellectual laziness in my opinion. It's arriving at a conclusion FAR before the available facts could lead you to one. If you find yourself (the generic you) at a conclusion that draws a big fat line between 'us good, them bad' you gotta know your ego has taken a big ole crap in your head.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
By problem of scope I mean particular versus general. If you talk about ISIS, or a particular place that's doing female genital mutilation or beheading people, that leaves one kind of impression that's tied to whoever's doing bad things. The impression some people leave is that even good Muslims are a bad thing; and that seems parallel to anti-Semitism. Critics call out "racism" but what they mean is a bad attitude or judgment concerning people of Religion X.
Often I think the person yelling "racism" is being overly-sensitive or giving people a pass for bad behavior, choosing instead to criticize the people who bring it up. Maybe they're just uncomfortable about it, like with Catholic priests molesting children, and would rather point the finger at the messenger. Maybe in their minds religion is always good and can't possibly be the cause (because they themselves don't take religion that seriously).
It's a case-by-case thing. I think everyone can benefit from being more mindful about how others might take what they say, and still say what needs said in a way that makes it clear who you're passing judgment upon.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Thanks for clarifying, a good point about particular versus general. In that respect Harris (for instance) is barely legal (ie, barely NOT spewing racism)
Racism as a condition demands other conditions be in place. I don't see those conditions being in place in all folks who criticize Islam, Christianity or Buddhism. A person must have hatred in their heart-mind, as a for instance. I don't see evidence of hatred in plenty of the critique type comments (or even rants).
As for your last paragraph, could you be talking about Right Speech, perchance ? Which has me backpedaling (rightly so) to clarify my point that things ought not be said because someone will twist them. Perhaps they should be left unsaid, but on an individual basis, case by case as you say.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Hamsaka
Racism just isn't the word for it, in any case. It's not tied to any particular race. Anti-Semitism comes closest for when people do cross the line, but that term is specifically tied to Judaism. I suppose "Islamophobia" is the anti-Semitism of Islam. The problem is when people then call critics of Islam Islamophobic, which has the effect of being a type of anti-criticism. Now I'm even confusing myself!
I mean it's like calling someone a racist who isn't, and thereby avoiding an answer to valid criticism. That's where I see potential for problems cropping up.
Right Speech... almost. A lot of what's said is disagreeable to many people, especially Muslims, and to such an extent that it's called blasphemy and considered worthy of punishment. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death by an authority figure (via fatwa) and hunted for many years for writing a book that questioned Islam and cast Mohammed in a bad light, and a couple of people were killed over it. I'm more advocating for "tactical" speech; say what needs said, just carefully and as specifically as possible to avoid confusion. Don't hold your punches, just make sure they're "measured"!
(The factors for right speech are "factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others", only half of which criticism generally corresponds.)
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
That's interesting . . . I've never thought about how . . . rich (ahem) is the kind of racism that is anti-Semitism, how that sets it apart as 'something more' than (?) generic racism. It's been use here a number of times and in my denseness I thought briefly 'who is talking about Jews?".
In that case I deeply disagree that I'm witnessing anti-Semitism-like racism against Muslims in that talk. I'm seeing a Hollywood actor display his poorly differentiated debate skills against clever, experienced debaters who I could barely hear because he talked over them. He couldn't defend his position with any facts I could see, just some emotionally seductive "Racism is bad and I'm not bad!" rhetoric. Ben Affleck's publicist needs to stop putting him in embarrassing situations.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
Categories of association. I've always found it odd that there's this single phrase "anti-Semitism" that specifically means hatred of Jewish people, but not one for Christianity or other religions. Maybe we only have anti-Semitism because of the unique situation of one religion coming along and trying to supplant another (claiming to be the fulfillment of the former), just like Islam thinks it's the Final Revelation (and even explicitly stating that there'll be no new prophets, so no newbie can claim superiority).
Jews, Christians and Muslims are all in a kind of implicit war of the spirit... a struggle for hearts and minds and dominance; which sometimes spills out into oppression and suppression, physical violence, inquisitions, crusades, and real wars.
Maybe Christians are thinking Islam will do to them what Christianity did to the Jews? Maybe that's why it's called phobia (fear) instead of something to do with hatred?!
My eyes feel like they're opening right up...
[Rambling Thoughts] I think when Christianity came along, and ever since, there's been this undercurrent of "Hey, the Messiah came along already and DIED FOR OUR SINS. For your sins! How can you still be Jewish? How can you deny Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour!?"... and from that hatred springs. It's probably also partly because it makes Christians doubt themselves; "If the Messiah really did come, wouldn't Judaism have died out?" Anti-Semitism was only a major major problem before Hitler came along, and what he did probably shook people out of it violently. [And done!]
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I've made myself sad now, even when gaining insight into a situation.
@Hamsaka said:
Hmm. I don't see how holding people responsible for their behavior is 'racist'.
It isn't. Holding an entire race, via a common religion is, especially when the vast majority had nothing to do with any crimes perpetrated. This what we're seeing. That is the peception. Perception is reality.
@Hamsaka said:
Hmm. I don't see how holding people responsible for their behavior is 'racist'. There are ethnic Middle Easterners committing atrocities, mostly on their own people.
If ISIS or whatever does bad things, people like you place the responsibility NOT on ISIS .... but on the shoulders of every other Muslim, including the law-abiding ones. This is illogical because Mr. X can't be held responsible for Mr. Y's actions. So the only explanation for such an illogical leap in conclusion is ... well, you guessed it.
@betaboy said:
If ISIS or whatever does bad things, people like you place the responsibility NOT on ISIS .... but on the shoulders of every other Muslim, including the law-abiding ones. This is illogical because Mr. X can't be held responsible for Mr. Y's actions. So the explanation for such an illogical leap in conclusion is ... well, you guessed it.
No, we don't.
In fact, my great sympathy at this time is with the Muslims (and non-Muslims) in Iraq and Syria who are being murdered, raped, or driven out of their homeland by ISIL. They deserve a better life than what they are experiencing, and that's putting it mildly.
Bigots are often very clever. I heard one bigot say recently: Look at all the Muslims who are suffering in the ME. I sympathize with them. They are being attacked viciously by fellow Muslims .... see how dangerous Muslims are? They are a danger to their own people too, not just to others. Etc. etc......
See where I am going, Vinnie? Your sympathy could just be a camouflage for something else entirely....
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@betaboy I think people say "bigot" too easily and without due cause. I can't speak for @vinlyn, but I'm very sympathetic myself to all those oppressed Muslims that really can't see any way out of their situation, even if they want to leave. Theirs is a similar situation to atheists in America only superficially, but much more dangerous and volatile. I read a book about ex-Muslims ("Leaving Islam" by Ibn Warraq), containing their testimonials, and cried. Put the Bigot Stick down, won't you? If you're going to attack someone, attack them for what they explicitly say, not for motivations you're inferring and could be way off-base about.
@Toraldris said:
betaboy I think people say "bigot" too easily and without due cause. I can't speak for vinlyn, but I'm very sympathetic myself to all those oppressed Muslims that really can't see any way out of their situation, even if they want to leave. Theirs is a similar situation to atheists in America only superficially, but much more dangerous and volatile. I read a book about ex-Muslims ("Leaving Islam" by Ibn Warraq), containing their testimonials, and cried. Put the Bigot Stick down, won't you? If you're going to attack someone, attack them for what they explicitly say, not for motivations you're inferring and could be way off-base about.
Take some deep breaths and relax. This is a discussion forum, so it is okay to ...uh, discuss, lol. If people worry more about the middle east than they do about their own backyard, it kind of makes me wonder ... are they really concerned about the plight of people in the ME, or are they using this 'plight' as an excuse to dehumanize an entire community?
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@betaboy I was just asking you to put the Bigot Stick down... not hard. It's one thing to say Harris and Maher could be bigots, or to generalize about bigots, but saying bigot in the same breath as you mention a fellow forum member, implying they may be a bigot in disguise and not sympathetic at all, doesn't seem quite right. Please?
@betaboy said:
Take some deep breaths and relax. This is a discussion forum, so it is okay to ...uh, discuss, lol. If people worry more about the middle east than they do about their own backyard, it kind of makes me wonder ... are they really concerned about the plight of people in the ME, or are they using this 'plight' as an excuse to dehumanize an entire community?
I guess you missed all the conversation about the definition of compassion.
It isn't a question about worrying MORE about the Middle East than our own backyard, it's being able to see situations in far off lands and understanding that those conditions are inherently unfair. It's one thing when a local society is living in dire conditions caused by their own people and/or government. It's quite another when a self-proclaimed and unrecognized entity plows into a region, rapes, murders, tortures, and drives people out of their homeland.
Being concerned about the fate of the innocent people in harm's way has nothing to do with dehumanizing an entire community. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
You seem very willing, in the past few posts, to define the thoughts and actions of other posters here. Okay, let's turn it around. As I recall, you're from Iran, and you're just sticking up for other Middle Easterners. See how easy it is. It may be correct. It may be totally incorrect. But it is so easy to throw around insults.
We aren't talking here about what others are saying ISIL is doing. We're talking about things ISIL says ISIL is doing. We're talking about things that ISIL itself has video taped and published on the net. We're talking about statements ISIL has itself made about justifying (for example) the rape of women and female children and turning them into sex slaves. And, some of these reports have been verified by various international organizations, including the United Nations.
Maher and Harris are absolutely correct. Modern liberalism (something I almost entirely subscribe to) has been a failure when it comes to identifying and addressing barbarism in its midst. It cannot fathom for a moment that not every culture is objectively the same or values the same qualities it does. So opposed is it to the idea that some [non-Western] culture or religion contains shockingly illberal tenets, that it will shout down any voice or ally who dares say otherwise. The fact that millions of poor little girls have their genitals slashed and mutilated, and then once having reached puberty, are confined to a life of seclusion and enforced burqa wearing, is of no consequence to the vast majority of my fellow liberals.
Why? Because diversity in and of itself is the value, rather than liberal pluralism and human rights.
@Hamsaka said:
Hmm. I don't see how holding people responsible for their behavior is 'racist'. There are ethnic Middle Easterners committing atrocities, mostly on their own people.
Not directed at you but to the charge, what race is Islam?
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
Not directed at you but to the charge, what race is Islam?
That's a very good point. Islam is not a race at all. It is not even a region. Indonesia, southern Thailand, and Malaysia are in Asia. I remember my son and I having a friendly argument about whether his Pakistan was an Asian nation or a Middle Eastern nation. Algeria is in Africa. Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East.
Mind is the forerunner of all evil states
Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks
or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering
follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught ox
Mind is the forerunner of all good states
Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks
or acts with pure mind, because of that, happiness
follows one, even as ones shadow that never leaves!
In some translations "perception" is used instead of mind....
@vinlyn said:
I understand the verse. I don't agree that it correlates to the pop phrase "perception is reality".
Ok, whatever.
It comes as no surprise, but changes nothing.
Believe what you like.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If I perceive a garden hose as a snake is it really a snake or a garden hose?
If perception is reality then reality differs between perceptions. That isn't really reality then.
Perception of a object is simply a reflection of light that has not been absorbed by the object. Not the object itself. The brain does the rest, right or wrong.
Perception can most certainly be different from reality.
If we perceived things as they are, we would not need Buddhism.
@ourself said:
If I perceive a garden hose as a snake is it really a snake or a garden hose?
If perception is reality then reality differs between perceptions. That isn't really reality then.
The hose-as-snake is real until your perceptions tell you otherwise. Then it becomes a hose.
Perceptions change and so does reality from one moment to the next.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
@Chaz said:
The hose-as-snake is real until your perceptions tell you otherwise. Then it becomes a hose.
Only in my mind. If it's a snake, it would have been a snake since its actual conception (the one born from other snakes and not my perception of it down the road) and will continue being a snake until conditions dictate otherwise. If it is a hose then I will see it as a hose if I look closer and see that it is only my perception of the hose that makes it appear as a snake.
Then I have a good laugh at my self.
If it was really a snake then I wouldn't laugh after it turned into a hose but be thankful I didn't touch it before it turned back!
Perceptions change and so does reality from one moment to the next.
True enough... It's just getting them to line up.
The hose was never a snake but someone could mistake it for one if they didn't bother to look closer.
Perception is most often not reality.
Especially when using a broad and sweeping glance.
So are we assuming an objective reality which is independent of our perception?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
So are we assuming an objective reality which is independent of our perception?
As long as there is more than one of us, I'm thinking it's the logical course of action. The alternative only leads to confusion.
I mean... If 1 out of 5 people saw a snake while the others saw a hose, is the hose 20% snake or does one person just have to clear their head?
I'll take the latter for 500.
If you're all just figments of my perceptions it still doesn't make much difference... There's time to kill.
So far, I still have to navigate obstacles and it appears my actions can cause consequence to not only myself but others as well.
@robot said:
Every Muslim is a terrorist if I believe it to be true.
There are a lot of people who see it that way. At least for the moment.
I live in an area that had a lot of Bull Snakes. Big snake - >6 feet long, thick in the middle and patterned similar to a Rattlesnake. They have a defense mechanism where when cornered they'll coil up, flatten their skull a bit, wag the tip of their tails in the air and hiss loudly. If you come up on one unsuspectingly, it can be very startling. For a split second they look just like a rattlesnake and every fiber of your being reacts to that. I knew, without a doubt that there were no rattlesnakes in our valley, but everytime a jumped a bull snake, instinct - a conditioned response - and I reacted as if it was, in fact, a rattlesnake. For a moment that bull snake was a rattler.
It's a perception. Perceptions are wayss we organize sensory and other inputs. In the case of the snake it fit neatly into a description of a rattlesnake - neatly enough for your mind to recognize it as a rattlesnake. That rattlesnake is reality.
That's the way of things
Our spiritual lives - our religious inclinations - are also based on our perceptions. If we perceive that there's a God, the God becomes a reality. If our perception is that the Dharma is true, then it is. And it's always perception.
@vinlyn said:
That's a very good point. Islam is not a race at all. It is not even a region. Indonesia, southern Thailand, and Malaysia are in Asia. I remember my son and I having a friendly argument about whether his Pakistan was an Asian nation or a Middle Eastern nation. Algeria is in Africa. Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East.
Tell that to the Sikhs who lost their lives in the aftermath of 9/11.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
Maher and Harris are absolutely correct. Modern liberalism (something I almost entirely subscribe to) has been a failure when it comes to identifying and addressing barbarism in its midst. It cannot fathom for a moment that not every culture is objectively the same or values the same qualities it does. So opposed is it to the idea that some [non-Western] culture or religion contains shockingly illberal tenets, that it will shout down any voice or ally who dares say otherwise. The fact that millions of poor little girls have their genitals slashed and mutilated, and then once having reached puberty, are confined to a life of seclusion and enforced burqa wearing, is of no consequence to the vast majority of my fellow liberals.
Why? Because diversity in and of itself is the value, rather than liberal pluralism and human rights.
What about the barbarism of the west? Starting illegal wars, drone attacks, bigotry against minorities ... the list is long. But don't focus on these things. Focus only on the barbarism of non-western cultures.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
Maher and Harris are absolutely correct. Modern liberalism (something I almost entirely subscribe to) has been a failure when it comes to identifying and addressing barbarism in its midst. It cannot fathom for a moment that not every culture is objectively the same or values the same qualities it does. So opposed is it to the idea that some [non-Western] culture or religion contains shockingly illberal tenets, that it will shout down any voice or ally who dares say otherwise. The fact that millions of poor little girls have their genitals slashed and mutilated, and then once having reached puberty, are confined to a life of seclusion and enforced burqa wearing, is of no consequence to the vast majority of my fellow liberals.
Why? Because diversity in and of itself is the value, rather than liberal pluralism and human rights.
It's weird... Seems like a no-brainer to me that all three of those would have to go hand in hand.
I know a lot of decent Muslim people and I am still torn on this problem. It's as if some followers of religious texts can either turn a blind eye to the atrocities sanctioned by their supposed creator or reason it away somehow.
Of course, I think any religion that calls for the blood of anybody is misguided and dangerous. The Torah, the Bible, the Qu'ran... That people really believe the things in there is scary to me. An almighty being declaring that people ought to be murdered, sold, raped, mutilated and whatever else simply for being different or seeing things differently is madness.
It really is sad but somehow from here (and admittedly far removed from their plight) I see an uprising in awareness from the women of the Middle East and the men who love them.
We can all be thankful that things like this get on the news these days. It is hard to garner support when nobody knows your plight.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@betaboy said:
What about the barbarism of the west? Starting illegal wars, drone attacks, bigotry against minorities ... the list is long. But don't focus on these things. Focus only on the barbarism of non-western cultures.
These things are indeed focused on when they are the center of focus but the feeding of west vs east has to stop on both sides.
@ourself said:
These things are indeed focused on when they are the center of focus but the feeding of west vs east has to stop on both sides.
If some random Muslim treats women badly, that's discussed and even unflattering conclusions on islamic societies are reached .... because these worthies care sooooooo much about women. But I can point to hundreds of instances of wife beating in western societies. Why can't these people - who care so much about women - discuss that? Why this selective outrage?
These worthies care soooo much about children being abused in the middle east. What about pedophilia in the west? The children in your backyard are not so important now? Only the children in the middle east?
@betaboy said:
What about the barbarism of the west? Starting illegal wars, drone attacks, bigotry against minorities ... the list is long. But don't focus on these things. Focus only on the barbarism of non-western cultures.
That's another topic for another thread. Not saying it's not a legitimate topic. But there you go again trying to change the discussion because the discussion at hand makes you feel uncomfortable.
@vinlyn said:
That's another topic for another thread. Not saying it's not a legitimate topic. But there you go again trying to change the discussion because the discussion at hand makes you feel uncomfortable.
Selective outrage baffles me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable.
@betaboy said:
If some random Muslim treats women badly, that's discussed and even unflattering conclusions on islamic societies are reached .... because these worthies care sooooooo much about women. But I can point to hundreds of instances of wife beating in western societies. Why can't these people - who care so much about women - discuss that? Why this selective outrage? These worthies care soooo much about children being abused in the middle east. What about pedophilia in the west? The children in your backyard are not so important now? Only the children in the middle east?
These things are discussed constantly in the West.
But these things are not the topic at hand.
And further, there is a large difference between (for example) an individual in the West sexually abusing a child, and a group that purports itself to be a government that intends to unite the Middle East into a Caliphate that has the sexual abuse of children as a stated policy.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Please stick to the topic, "Religion in America" which originally began focusing on Christianity and American habits and attitudes therein.
many thanks.
@betaboy, if you really want to discuss this (although to my mind, it's been done to distraction, and it's flogging a dead horse) feel free to start a new thread.
As the founder of this thread, I'm not so sure that Betaboy's posts are so off topic.
The way that we treat religion and government in this country is based on the separation of church and state, and that includes any religion and the state. Yet, many aspects of our government also skirt that separation. The article on which the thread is based discusses the secularization in American social and political life, which is in direct opposition to the general Muslim perspective of religion being a very large part of government. It's actually rather instructive in the discussion to compare and contrast. For example, when I was a boy there were still "blue laws" in many states regarding stores being open on Sundays. We have evolved past that and separated church and state, although in Colorado car dealerships are not open on Sundays (CRS 12-6-301
through 303). On the other hand, at least the last time I was in Malaysia, on Fridays, workers in government offices had a nearly 3 hour break in the early afternoon so they could attend Muslim Friday afternoon prayers; such offices were then open on Saturday mornings to make up for that. A lack of separation of church and state. And, we had a Muslim teacher who felt she should not have to teach Friday afternoons due to prayer time...here in America.
@vinlyn said:
As the founder of this thread, I'm not so sure that Betaboy's posts are so off topic.
The way that we treat religion and government in this country is based on the separation of church and state, and that includes any religion and the state. Yet, many aspects of our government also skirt that separation. The article on which the thread is based discusses the secularization in American social and political life, which is in direct opposition to the general Muslim perspective of religion being a very large part of government. It's actually rather instructive in the discussion to compare and contrast. For example, when I was a boy there were still "blue laws" in many states regarding stores being open on Sundays. We have evolved past that and separated church and state, although in Colorado car dealerships are not open on Sundays (CRS 12-6-301
through 303). On the other hand, at least the last time I was in Malaysia, on Fridays, workers in government offices had a nearly 3 hour break in the early afternoon so they could attend Muslim Friday afternoon prayers; such offices were then open on Saturday mornings to make up for that. A lack of separation of church and state. And, we had a Muslim teacher who felt she should not have to teach Friday afternoons due to prayer time...here in America.
Are schools open on Sunday in the US? I once heard a person criticizing an SDA for disconnecting the phone on Saturday, I thought it showed character to stand for one's beliefs. The Catholic Church is still opposed to open stores on Sunday I believe.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2014
@vinlyn said:
As the founder of this thread, I'm not so sure that Betaboy's posts are so off topic.
>
Previously...
@vinlyn said:These things are discussed constantly in the West.
Comments
Hmm. I don't see how holding people responsible for their behavior is 'racist'. There are ethnic Middle Easterners committing atrocities, mostly on their own people.
@Hamsaka I think it's a problem of scope. Even people talking about high criminal activity, gun violence, and poverty in urban zones (in America) have been called racist, because they're mostly populated by "black" people. That may be the furthest thing from someone's mind when they bring such issues up, but it's hard to anticipate how others will take what you say (theory of mind and such; people attach motivations to what you say).
To criticize behaviors and religious doctrines can land you in the same predicament if it begins to seem like you're painting all Muslims and Muslim countries with the same brush. The solution is to focus on specific problems and not generalize (at least that's what I'd propose).
I agree @Toraldris, and important facts or ideas shouldn't have to be kept silent because someone else's theory of mind will bend and twist it. Their theory of mind needs to catch up with the facts. Apparently this CAN happen. My home state voted in gay marriage and legal weed :buck: which you gotta admit is evidence people can be pressured into letting go of their sacred cows. Either that or a bunch died off and left a different class of voters
.
What do you mean by it being a problem of scope? I get what you are saying about the particular . . . difficulties in discussing problems of criminal activity and poverty in urban zones because of the higher numbers of 'blacks' and browns.
I feel quite confident I am not racist, and being called racist for pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS bad behavior being perpetrated by members of an ethnic group doesn't make me racist. I decide if I am racist, isn't that my responsibility (I'm preaching to the choir, I know)? Ideally, I ought not to be rattled into silence no matter what I am labeled by others, and I get that sense about Harris who is often accused of bigotry and racism because he's been quite outspoken. What IS a racist? A racist is as a racist does. I don't 'get' that Harris is 'doing racism'. Buying into him being racist based upon his harsh criticism of Islam is intellectual laziness in my opinion. It's arriving at a conclusion FAR before the available facts could lead you to one. If you find yourself (the generic you) at a conclusion that draws a big fat line between 'us good, them bad' you gotta know your ego has taken a big ole crap in your head.
@Hamsaka I agree.
By problem of scope I mean particular versus general. If you talk about ISIS, or a particular place that's doing female genital mutilation or beheading people, that leaves one kind of impression that's tied to whoever's doing bad things. The impression some people leave is that even good Muslims are a bad thing; and that seems parallel to anti-Semitism. Critics call out "racism" but what they mean is a bad attitude or judgment concerning people of Religion X.
Often I think the person yelling "racism" is being overly-sensitive or giving people a pass for bad behavior, choosing instead to criticize the people who bring it up. Maybe they're just uncomfortable about it, like with Catholic priests molesting children, and would rather point the finger at the messenger. Maybe in their minds religion is always good and can't possibly be the cause (because they themselves don't take religion that seriously).
It's a case-by-case thing. I think everyone can benefit from being more mindful about how others might take what they say, and still say what needs said in a way that makes it clear who you're passing judgment upon.
Thanks for clarifying, a good point about particular versus general. In that respect Harris (for instance) is barely legal
(ie, barely NOT spewing racism)
Racism as a condition demands other conditions be in place. I don't see those conditions being in place in all folks who criticize Islam, Christianity or Buddhism. A person must have hatred in their heart-mind, as a for instance. I don't see evidence of hatred in plenty of the critique type comments (or even rants).
As for your last paragraph, could you be talking about Right Speech, perchance
? Which has me backpedaling (rightly so) to clarify my point that things ought not be said because someone will twist them. Perhaps they should be left unsaid, but on an individual basis, case by case as you say.
@Hamsaka
The problem is when people then call critics of Islam Islamophobic, which has the effect of being a type of anti-criticism. Now I'm even confusing myself!
Racism just isn't the word for it, in any case. It's not tied to any particular race. Anti-Semitism comes closest for when people do cross the line, but that term is specifically tied to Judaism. I suppose "Islamophobia" is the anti-Semitism of Islam.
I mean it's like calling someone a racist who isn't, and thereby avoiding an answer to valid criticism. That's where I see potential for problems cropping up.
Right Speech... almost. A lot of what's said is disagreeable to many people, especially Muslims, and to such an extent that it's called blasphemy and considered worthy of punishment. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death by an authority figure (via fatwa) and hunted for many years for writing a book that questioned Islam and cast Mohammed in a bad light, and a couple of people were killed over it. I'm more advocating for "tactical" speech; say what needs said, just carefully and as specifically as possible to avoid confusion. Don't hold your punches, just make sure they're "measured"!
(The factors for right speech are "factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others", only half of which criticism generally corresponds.)
That's interesting . . . I've never thought about how . . . rich (ahem) is the kind of racism that is anti-Semitism, how that sets it apart as 'something more' than (?) generic racism. It's been use here a number of times and in my denseness I thought briefly 'who is talking about Jews?".
In that case I deeply disagree that I'm witnessing anti-Semitism-like racism against Muslims in that talk. I'm seeing a Hollywood actor display his poorly differentiated debate skills against clever, experienced debaters who I could barely hear because he talked over them. He couldn't defend his position with any facts I could see, just some emotionally seductive "Racism is bad and I'm not bad!" rhetoric. Ben Affleck's publicist needs to stop putting him in embarrassing situations.
Categories of association. I've always found it odd that there's this single phrase "anti-Semitism" that specifically means hatred of Jewish people, but not one for Christianity or other religions. Maybe we only have anti-Semitism because of the unique situation of one religion coming along and trying to supplant another (claiming to be the fulfillment of the former), just like Islam thinks it's the Final Revelation (and even explicitly stating that there'll be no new prophets, so no newbie can claim superiority).
Jews, Christians and Muslims are all in a kind of implicit war of the spirit... a struggle for hearts and minds and dominance; which sometimes spills out into oppression and suppression, physical violence, inquisitions, crusades, and real wars.
Maybe Christians are thinking Islam will do to them what Christianity did to the Jews? Maybe that's why it's called phobia (fear) instead of something to do with hatred?!
My eyes feel like they're opening right up...
[Rambling Thoughts] I think when Christianity came along, and ever since, there's been this undercurrent of "Hey, the Messiah came along already and DIED FOR OUR SINS. For your sins! How can you still be Jewish? How can you deny Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour!?"... and from that hatred springs. It's probably also partly because it makes Christians doubt themselves; "If the Messiah really did come, wouldn't Judaism have died out?" Anti-Semitism was only a major major problem before Hitler came along, and what he did probably shook people out of it violently. [And done!]
I've made myself sad now, even when gaining insight into a situation.
It isn't. Holding an entire race, via a common religion is, especially when the vast majority had nothing to do with any crimes perpetrated. This what we're seeing. That is the peception. Perception is reality.
If ISIS or whatever does bad things, people like you place the responsibility NOT on ISIS .... but on the shoulders of every other Muslim, including the law-abiding ones. This is illogical because Mr. X can't be held responsible for Mr. Y's actions. So the only explanation for such an illogical leap in conclusion is ... well, you guessed it.
As clever as that saying is, perception is not reality.
Oh?
No, we don't.
In fact, my great sympathy at this time is with the Muslims (and non-Muslims) in Iraq and Syria who are being murdered, raped, or driven out of their homeland by ISIL. They deserve a better life than what they are experiencing, and that's putting it mildly.
Bigots are often very clever. I heard one bigot say recently: Look at all the Muslims who are suffering in the ME. I sympathize with them. They are being attacked viciously by fellow Muslims .... see how dangerous Muslims are? They are a danger to their own people too, not just to others. Etc. etc......
See where I am going, Vinnie? Your sympathy could just be a camouflage for something else entirely....
@betaboy I think people say "bigot" too easily and without due cause. I can't speak for @vinlyn, but I'm very sympathetic myself to all those oppressed Muslims that really can't see any way out of their situation, even if they want to leave. Theirs is a similar situation to atheists in America only superficially, but much more dangerous and volatile. I read a book about ex-Muslims ("Leaving Islam" by Ibn Warraq), containing their testimonials, and cried. Put the Bigot Stick down, won't you? If you're going to attack someone, attack them for what they explicitly say, not for motivations you're inferring and could be way off-base about.
Take some deep breaths and relax. This is a discussion forum, so it is okay to ...uh, discuss, lol. If people worry more about the middle east than they do about their own backyard, it kind of makes me wonder ... are they really concerned about the plight of people in the ME, or are they using this 'plight' as an excuse to dehumanize an entire community?
@betaboy I was just asking you to put the Bigot Stick down... not hard. It's one thing to say Harris and Maher could be bigots, or to generalize about bigots, but saying bigot in the same breath as you mention a fellow forum member, implying they may be a bigot in disguise and not sympathetic at all, doesn't seem quite right. Please?
Hmmmm ...... the Buddha saw things differently, I'm afraid ;-)
You can take me at my word. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But I don't lie.
And let's make it clear, you don't know me well enough to call me Vinnie.
I guess you missed all the conversation about the definition of compassion.
It isn't a question about worrying MORE about the Middle East than our own backyard, it's being able to see situations in far off lands and understanding that those conditions are inherently unfair. It's one thing when a local society is living in dire conditions caused by their own people and/or government. It's quite another when a self-proclaimed and unrecognized entity plows into a region, rapes, murders, tortures, and drives people out of their homeland.
Being concerned about the fate of the innocent people in harm's way has nothing to do with dehumanizing an entire community. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
You seem very willing, in the past few posts, to define the thoughts and actions of other posters here. Okay, let's turn it around. As I recall, you're from Iran, and you're just sticking up for other Middle Easterners. See how easy it is. It may be correct. It may be totally incorrect. But it is so easy to throw around insults.
We aren't talking here about what others are saying ISIL is doing. We're talking about things ISIL says ISIL is doing. We're talking about things that ISIL itself has video taped and published on the net. We're talking about statements ISIL has itself made about justifying (for example) the rape of women and female children and turning them into sex slaves. And, some of these reports have been verified by various international organizations, including the United Nations.
I'm up to seeing where Buddha said that "perception is reality". Care to cite a reference?
Maher and Harris are absolutely correct. Modern liberalism (something I almost entirely subscribe to) has been a failure when it comes to identifying and addressing barbarism in its midst. It cannot fathom for a moment that not every culture is objectively the same or values the same qualities it does. So opposed is it to the idea that some [non-Western] culture or religion contains shockingly illberal tenets, that it will shout down any voice or ally who dares say otherwise. The fact that millions of poor little girls have their genitals slashed and mutilated, and then once having reached puberty, are confined to a life of seclusion and enforced burqa wearing, is of no consequence to the vast majority of my fellow liberals.
Why? Because diversity in and of itself is the value, rather than liberal pluralism and human rights.
Not directed at you but to the charge, what race is Islam?
That's a very good point. Islam is not a race at all. It is not even a region. Indonesia, southern Thailand, and Malaysia are in Asia. I remember my son and I having a friendly argument about whether his Pakistan was an Asian nation or a Middle Eastern nation. Algeria is in Africa. Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East.
Sure. Dammapada verse 1
Mind is the forerunner of all evil states
Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks
or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering
follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught ox
Mind is the forerunner of all good states
Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks
or acts with pure mind, because of that, happiness
follows one, even as ones shadow that never leaves!
In some translations "perception" is used instead of mind....
I understand the verse. I don't agree that it correlates to the pop phrase "perception is reality".
Sorry, Chaz. But I do appreciate you citing the reference related to your comment.
Ok, whatever.
It comes as no surprise, but changes nothing.
Believe what you like.
If I perceive a garden hose as a snake is it really a snake or a garden hose?
If perception is reality then reality differs between perceptions. That isn't really reality then.
Perception of a object is simply a reflection of light that has not been absorbed by the object. Not the object itself. The brain does the rest, right or wrong.
Perception can most certainly be different from reality.
If we perceived things as they are, we would not need Buddhism.
The hose-as-snake is real until your perceptions tell you otherwise. Then it becomes a hose.
Perceptions change and so does reality from one moment to the next.
Only in my mind. If it's a snake, it would have been a snake since its actual conception (the one born from other snakes and not my perception of it down the road) and will continue being a snake until conditions dictate otherwise. If it is a hose then I will see it as a hose if I look closer and see that it is only my perception of the hose that makes it appear as a snake.
Then I have a good laugh at my self.
If it was really a snake then I wouldn't laugh after it turned into a hose but be thankful I didn't touch it before it turned back!
True enough... It's just getting them to line up.
The hose was never a snake but someone could mistake it for one if they didn't bother to look closer.
Perception is most often not reality.
Especially when using a broad and sweeping glance.
So are we assuming an objective reality which is independent of our perception?
As long as there is more than one of us, I'm thinking it's the logical course of action. The alternative only leads to confusion.
I mean... If 1 out of 5 people saw a snake while the others saw a hose, is the hose 20% snake or does one person just have to clear their head?
I'll take the latter for 500.
If you're all just figments of my perceptions it still doesn't make much difference... There's time to kill.
So far, I still have to navigate obstacles and it appears my actions can cause consequence to not only myself but others as well.
So I try to foster compassion and be aware.
And try not to jump at every coiled up hose.
Makes sense.
Every Muslim is a terrorist if I believe it to be true.
There are a lot of people who see it that way. At least for the moment.
I live in an area that had a lot of Bull Snakes. Big snake - >6 feet long, thick in the middle and patterned similar to a Rattlesnake. They have a defense mechanism where when cornered they'll coil up, flatten their skull a bit, wag the tip of their tails in the air and hiss loudly. If you come up on one unsuspectingly, it can be very startling. For a split second they look just like a rattlesnake and every fiber of your being reacts to that. I knew, without a doubt that there were no rattlesnakes in our valley, but everytime a jumped a bull snake, instinct - a conditioned response - and I reacted as if it was, in fact, a rattlesnake. For a moment that bull snake was a rattler.
It's a perception. Perceptions are wayss we organize sensory and other inputs. In the case of the snake it fit neatly into a description of a rattlesnake - neatly enough for your mind to recognize it as a rattlesnake. That rattlesnake is reality.
That's the way of things
Our spiritual lives - our religious inclinations - are also based on our perceptions. If we perceive that there's a God, the God becomes a reality. If our perception is that the Dharma is true, then it is. And it's always perception.
Tell that to the Sikhs who lost their lives in the aftermath of 9/11.
What about the barbarism of the west? Starting illegal wars, drone attacks, bigotry against minorities ... the list is long. But don't focus on these things. Focus only on the barbarism of non-western cultures.
It's weird... Seems like a no-brainer to me that all three of those would have to go hand in hand.
I know a lot of decent Muslim people and I am still torn on this problem. It's as if some followers of religious texts can either turn a blind eye to the atrocities sanctioned by their supposed creator or reason it away somehow.
Of course, I think any religion that calls for the blood of anybody is misguided and dangerous. The Torah, the Bible, the Qu'ran... That people really believe the things in there is scary to me. An almighty being declaring that people ought to be murdered, sold, raped, mutilated and whatever else simply for being different or seeing things differently is madness.
It really is sad but somehow from here (and admittedly far removed from their plight) I see an uprising in awareness from the women of the Middle East and the men who love them.
We can all be thankful that things like this get on the news these days. It is hard to garner support when nobody knows your plight.
These things are indeed focused on when they are the center of focus but the feeding of west vs east has to stop on both sides.
If some random Muslim treats women badly, that's discussed and even unflattering conclusions on islamic societies are reached .... because these worthies care sooooooo much about women. But I can point to hundreds of instances of wife beating in western societies. Why can't these people - who care so much about women - discuss that? Why this selective outrage?
These worthies care soooo much about children being abused in the middle east. What about pedophilia in the west? The children in your backyard are not so important now? Only the children in the middle east?
As I said, selective outrage.
Exactly.
Thank you.
That's another topic for another thread. Not saying it's not a legitimate topic. But there you go again trying to change the discussion because the discussion at hand makes you feel uncomfortable.
Selective outrage baffles me. It doesn't make me uncomfortable.
These things are discussed constantly in the West.
But these things are not the topic at hand.
And further, there is a large difference between (for example) an individual in the West sexually abusing a child, and a group that purports itself to be a government that intends to unite the Middle East into a Caliphate that has the sexual abuse of children as a stated policy.
Please stick to the topic, "Religion in America" which originally began focusing on Christianity and American habits and attitudes therein.
many thanks.
@betaboy, if you really want to discuss this (although to my mind, it's been done to distraction, and it's flogging a dead horse) feel free to start a new thread.
As the founder of this thread, I'm not so sure that Betaboy's posts are so off topic.
The way that we treat religion and government in this country is based on the separation of church and state, and that includes any religion and the state. Yet, many aspects of our government also skirt that separation. The article on which the thread is based discusses the secularization in American social and political life, which is in direct opposition to the general Muslim perspective of religion being a very large part of government. It's actually rather instructive in the discussion to compare and contrast. For example, when I was a boy there were still "blue laws" in many states regarding stores being open on Sundays. We have evolved past that and separated church and state, although in Colorado car dealerships are not open on Sundays (CRS 12-6-301
through 303). On the other hand, at least the last time I was in Malaysia, on Fridays, workers in government offices had a nearly 3 hour break in the early afternoon so they could attend Muslim Friday afternoon prayers; such offices were then open on Saturday mornings to make up for that. A lack of separation of church and state. And, we had a Muslim teacher who felt she should not have to teach Friday afternoons due to prayer time...here in America.
Are schools open on Sunday in the US? I once heard a person criticizing an SDA for disconnecting the phone on Saturday, I thought it showed character to stand for one's beliefs. The Catholic Church is still opposed to open stores on Sunday I believe.
>
Previously...
>
But these things are not the topic at hand.
Well make your mind up!