How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims

[Frank Merton]

I have difficulty restraining myself at my disgust at the tactic of "but others do it" when we talk about flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up hotels in India or schools in Thailand.

[Clarakore]

Since you are a moderator, I suppose I should be careful, but what you posted is just too much. I pointed out three ways the argument is fallacious, and you just wave your hand at it. Then you talk about monks in medieval Japan of all places. Really, I am insulted you think this is even remotely relevant and think I'm that stupid.

You could have done better talking about the Buddhist role in Japan during the Second World War, but even then it would not work since the Japan cult at the time was Shinto rather than Buddhist and the Buddhists kept their heads down.

This conversation in general is about topics, and while some stay strictly on topic there are others who constantly begin to comment on the poster and not the topic. Ad hominen is just not very interesting. Please let us return to the topic and leave these personal attacks out of it. If one doesn't like a view or opinion then they should focus on that and not the fellow poster.

Accusing others of making threats or using some argument technique when others are just offering their honest opinion is not helpful either.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Frank Merton]

Pointing out the use of propaganda tactics and logical fallacies are not personal attacks. What you just did is.

I'm disgusted; besides I have to go to bed.

[redhen]

Terrorist bombings happen regularly, and though it is religious, it is also racial, and it is also a long-standing history of revenge attacks that promote future violence.

Yes, I've mentioned already on this thread that most wars/conflicts are found to be racial/tribal if you scratch the surface. Best example of this is Northern Ireland and the "troubles". Sure, ostensibly this was a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but no one was coming to blows over the details of theology. War can cloak itself in all kinds of outwards semblances, religion is just one.

That said, there are indeed religions that have no truck with violence and war. Buddhism, Jainism and Ba'hai. I already solicited evidence on this thread that shows violence being promoted in any of these religions scriptures or commentaries. No responses were received.

Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name.

[Clarakore]

There is a definite lean toward and general reliance on stereotypes which can be augmented, manufactured, or in other cases just taken for granted.

Given the right circumstances any community can veer toward extremism and find within their belief system, be it book or thought, and pervert those or simply ignore vast portions of them to selectively quote justification for their extremism.

We all are comfortable with the thought of the peaceful Buddhist and the violent Muslim, and Hollywood and the internet has definitely latched on and amplified those stereotypes, but they are not necessarily true under all conditions and could be further explored especially with the consideration of how they would operate or change given different context.

Just as we are shaped by our environemnt as individuals so can groups.

There are ample doctrinal sources that provide Buddhists with a justification for violence such as the Mahayana Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Upayakaushalya Sutra, and the Kalachakra Tantra.

One of the core element that draws Buddhists into the social realm of violence is their identification: "I am a Buddhist," which requires the distinction between those within and outside the imagined community.

In contemporary times, the term "Buddhist" is coterminous with a number of ethnic and national markers such as "Tibetan (Buddhist)," "Thai (Buddhist)," "Burmese (Buddhist)," and "Sinhalese (Buddhist)".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Terrorism

Edited April 25, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[shadowhive]

I can agree to an extent, shadowhive. However, that agreement extends only as far as state sanctioned violence, and even that is tempered by a question of how many people actually hold those laws to be right. Allow me to expand, please.

The first part is obvious. For the most part, even in the most Isalmic countries in the world, terrorist activities are still very much a minority. And yes, in some areas they may be almost daily occurrences, but they are still done by a minority, and more to the point are often the result of long-standing feuds. Take the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as an example. Terrorist bombings happen regularly, and though it is religious, it is also racial, and it is also a long-standing history of revenge attacks that promote future violence. They aren't doing it purely for the glory of Allah, they are doing it because they believe the land is theirs, and that the Jews took it by force. In contrast, the Jews believe they have a God-given right to the land, and defend it. These days, terrorist attacks in that area is more about revenge (you destroyed x building and y lives last time, now it's our turn to seek vengeance, then the attack takes place and the other side gets to do the same thing - they've been fighting so long that they no longer know another way).

The second part, about State-sanctioned violence, I can perhaps agree in part. Sure, homosexuals are executed. Rape victims can be convicted of adultery and therefore executed. However, what percentage of the population agrees with such laws? 90%? 10%? I'm guessing it's probably somewhere between these two extremes. I don't know the answer, I've never interviewed said people. Muslim theocracies aren't democracies. 99.9% of a population can disagree with law, but if it's in a theocracy, only the 0.1% actually matters, if that is what the leadership decides. So if the law says homosexuals must be executed, and a homosexual is discovered, it doesn't matter how many disagree, the law will still be invoked. Indeed, to voice disagreement can bring its own hardships. A law that demands execution of minority groups does not necessarily mean that the majority actually support it. Sure, they ma support it, and I'm sure there are those that do. Is it a majority? I don't know. Is it a massive majority? I don't know. I can't answer these questions. I can just say what is allowed according to law, and stress that just because it is a law does not therefore mean that the majority support it.

As said, terrorism is a minority, even in Muslim countries. Such extremism doesn't exist in the majority. State-sanctioned violence, it's a coin toss. I see arguments for and against. I'd like to think that there are Muslims in these countries that believe it is wrong but feel powerless to change it. Am I right or wrong? I cannot leap either way to a conclusion.

That brings us to Muslims in the West, and it seems we both agree that these types of Muslims are indeed moderates (for the most part).

My post was mainly towards the state sanctioned violence, as opposed to the terrorist activities in such regions.

That does nothing to calm my fears, quite the opposite.

Why? Because of the talk of a theocractical government, which are muslim in nature and how intrinisically evil they are. The deaths these theocracies commit are caused by their religious belief. This, followed by your 'oh the moderates can't do anything even if they are the majority because that's what matters' is incredibly terrifying. Any free person with any amount of common sense should be scared by these governments, especially when what they do is sanctioned and mandated by their religion. People are executed left and right and no one can do anything about it because the religion has all the power. If that's not terrifying I don't know what is.

I'm much more afraid of those governments than I am by simple terrorists.

Edited April 25, 2013 by shadowhive

[+Paranoid Android]

Since you are a moderator, I suppose I should be careful, but what you posted is just too much.

My status as a Moderator should not pose any kind of issue. I am given authority to make decisions about particular members and particular posts, but I am not given a Right to abuse that power. I hope you aren't suggesting that I am doing such!

I pointed out three ways the argument is fallacious, and you just wave your hand at it. Then you talk about monks in medieval Japan of all places. Really, I am insulted you think this is even remotely relevant and think I'm that stupid.

You could have done better talking about the Buddhist role in Japan during the Second World War, but even then it would not work since the Japan cult at the time was Shinto rather than Buddhist and the Buddhists kept their heads down.

I must admit I have not searched recently for recent links. My sole point in using these sites was to bring forth one single issue - Buddhism has been used for violence. I know you area Buddhist, Frank. And I don't despise you or hate you. I understand the intellectual core of Buddhism being what it is (to be honest, I don't think I could have the constraint to be a Buddhist, even if I claimed to be one). But I won't ignore that Buddhism has in the past inspired violence. To state otherwise is to be dishonest. Disagree if you like, I'm posting evidence where it has happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not campaigning against Buddhism, I know its core teaching is peace. But in a way, that is entirely the point I am trying to make. The core teachings of Islam are also peace. But corrupted, just as they have been here, is also misleading in categorising all of Islam (or Buddhism if you wish to turn it on its head).

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ad hominen is just not very interesting. Please let us return to the topic and leave these personal attacks out of it. If one doesn't like a view or opinion then they should focus on that and not the fellow poster.

Just a note Britney, 'ad hominem' is not equal to an 'insult' or 'personal attack', it is technically a logical fallacy. 'You are ugly' is an insult but not an ad hominem; 'we shouldn't believe anything you say concerning Islam because you are ugly' is an ad hominem, because being one's appearance is irrelevant to the correctness of one's views. I'm unclear on why Frank is so disgusted as I haven't read the full back-and-forth with him, but I don't think he's committed the ad hominem fallacy.

[+Paranoid Android]

That said, there are indeed religions that have no truck with violence and war. Buddhism, Jainism and Ba'hai. I already solicited evidence on this thread that shows violence being promoted in any of these religions scriptures or commentaries. No responses were received.

Buddhism, you mean that belief that has inspired people to kill? It is not often politically correct to bring this forth, but militant Buddhists do exist. Blame people rather than "holy texts" (we've already established that Buddhism does not have a Holy Text), if you like, I have a feeling you will. I don't know why you make concessions with one group but not with others....

Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name.

Islam HAS evolved. Some just refuse to acknowledge that (that goes for both sides, some extremists haven't noticed the change, while some critics erroneously think nothing has changed).

[+Paranoid Android]

My post was mainly towards the state sanctioned violence, as opposed to the terrorist activities in such regions.

I agree, that was your intent. But I don't know why it was, my post has always been a holistic approach, including State sanctioned violence AND terrorism. Look through this thread and you'll find the content as it stands agrees with such a view. Terrorism has not ever been considered of greater value in the discussion of Muslim belief.

That does nothing to calm my fears, quite the opposite.

Why? Because of the talk of a theocractical government, which are muslim in nature and how intrinisically evil they are. The deaths these theocracies commit are caused by their religious belief. This, followed by your 'oh the moderates can't do anything even if they are the majority because that's what matters' is incredibly terrifying. Any free person with any amount of common sense should be scared by these governments, especially when what they do is sanctioned and mandated by their religion. People are executed left and right and no one can do anything about it because the religion has all the power. If that's not terrifying I don't know what is.

I'm much more afraid of those governments than I am by simple terrorists.

You've lost me. I have not said anything about how "evil" Muslim governments are. I've not said anything about moderates being "unable to do anything". I have not said anything about what is mandated by any religion. I therefore cannot find any reason to link your post/s with the ones I have made in this thread!

[Irrelevant]

It's over already...most just don't know it yet.

Clinging to half truths..old fables and tradition, not to mention superstition...sometimes I think they Atheist are actually closer to Gods heart than the religious!

[shadowhive]

I agree, that was your intent. But I don't know why it was, my post has always been a holistic approach, including State sanctioned violence AND terrorism. Look through this thread and you'll find the content as it stands agrees with such a view. Terrorism has not ever been considered of greater value in the discussion of Muslim belief.

Fear of muslims shouldn't be because of terrorism alone, it should be in part due to the state sanctioned violence which is madated by muslim religious belief. That is more terrifying than terrorists because while terrorist extremists can be rightly wrote off as a minority, you can't say the same about state sanctioned violece.

You've lost me. I have not said anything about how "evil" Muslim governments are. I've not said anything about moderates being "unable to do anything". I have not said anything about what is mandated by any religion. I therefore cannot find any reason to link your post/s with the ones I have made in this thread!

I've said that they're evil. Last I checked executing people for being raped went firmly under the 'evil' category. You said any majority would be powerless to change things under a theocracy (which would include moderates), makin them powerless in such countries.

I 'linked it to yours posts' because you mention how great moderates are and how they are the majority. Yet at the same time, those moderates that are supposedly the majority are powerless in muslim countries and can't seem to put an end to the barbaric practicies the governments do within them. That linked to something zaphod said (which you replied to) about moderates metaphorically holding people back while the extremeists did the damage. In those countries the moderates, by doing nothing, let extremeists at all levels within get away with all kinds of atrocities.

Edited April 25, 2013 by shadowhive

[Irrelevant]

Please don't anybody play the " oh I'm hurt you have offended my beliefs " card..

When I hear that it's a offence to human intelligence, one that gets played all to often to take advantage of a human emotion.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Irrelevant

[Clarakore]

State sponsored terrorism filtered through the lens of theocracy is well on the decline. Democracy is blooming. We have to be vigilant towards societies which due to their new found democracy can be hijacked by religious extremism if they can get enough votes. (Provision of information works best to counter that).

Look what happened here after all, the majority were coaxed into hating Muslims, fearing Islam, and that allowed Bush to call his war a crusade and solicit advice from pastors. We are the number one state that has sponsored terrorism.

Of course it had nothing to do with religion but geopolitics and the greed of a few who became wealthier in the process as our sons and daughters went for patriotic reasons, a need for work, or just fear induced hatred.

It is illogical to think the problem is just them and we play no part, or that others are not capitalizing on our fear.

When we fear our throughts stop at the reptillian or mammal brain and critical thought (the last we developed as we evolved) is cut off. It is critical thought which allows the progress of humanity.

Those operating at the mammalian stage cannot process information and those at the reptilian level will become those capable of terror or lesser forms of damage including to themselves.

We play a part and until we look at ourselves and find what it is this won't end. Reflection requires critical functioning.

Good news is that this is already happening as evidenced by the calmer tone in our reaction to the Boston bombings. The media is not full on mentioning the word terror every 30 seconds repeating it until we become willing accomplices to war.

We have put more fear in others, destabilized more societies, and brought more death to others than they have to us.

Saddam was not behind state terrorism and had a stable society before we went in and allowed many to die and that process continues. How many died in Iraq the day of the Boston bombing? Hundreds in several bombings.

To pretend we had no part in that is folly. They also look at us and see the moderates here did nothing to prevent it!

Edited April 25, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Irrelevant]

This is slapstick...

Edited April 25, 2013 by Irrelevant

[Clarakore]

Just to add that was not a defense of Saddam. It is looking at how many deaths occured and how stable society was in Iraq before we started an unjustified war there and then comparing how stable society is there now and how many deaths occured after.

And the religious beliefs of our president and quite a few of our conservatives did play a part in that as did the meda.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[redhen]

Buddhism, you mean that belief that has inspired people to kill?

Buddhism inspired people to kill? Show me some evidence for this claim please. I await with joyful anticipation. Again, you are confusing racial/tribal conflicts with holy war.

It is not often politically correct to bring this forth, but militant Buddhists do exist. Blame people rather than "holy texts" (we've already established that Buddhism does not have a Holy Text),

No we have not established that. Buddhism does indeed has a canon of scripture, and no where in there will you find exhortations to violence and war, unlike Islam.

if you like, I have a feeling you will. I don't know why you make concessions with one group but not with others....

Sure, I blame individual Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs who commit atrocities. But Islam has not morally progressed very much since its inception.

Islam HAS evolved. Some just refuse to acknowledge that (that goes for both sides, some extremists haven't noticed the change, while some critics erroneously think nothing has changed).

The only thing that has changed is that Muslim countries/theocracies are once again in a position of power and wealth, due to oil profits, such that they can continue with their goal of turning Western nations into Caliphates which was put on hold after the end of WW1.

So tell me how Islam has evolved? I mean morally. Show me the equivalent of the Vatican II council that expressed a more just and inclusive teaching towards non-Catholics, especially Jews. I realize Islam has no ultimate supreme leader, but still, you should be able to find conclaves of Muslim religious leaders that came up with a new, evolutionary, teaching of inclusiveness and acceptance. Surely?

[Setton]

Then there are religions that do advocate violence and war in their holy texts. Most have evolved from bronze age and medieval mindsets, others, Islam being one, have not. That is the difference. To say otherwise is to sink into the morass of cultural relativism which excuses all sorts of atrocities in its name.

Islam certainly has evolved from its origins, as pointed out by others. But can you really expect the religion to be as far along as other, older religions? You say they haven't evolved from Medieval mindsets: well, chronologically, they should be in the same place as the Christian world in the 1400s. If anything, I'd say they're further along than that (you can argue whether that's down to our influence or not; personally, I'm just glad that they are).

[Setton]

So tell me how Islam has evolved? I mean morally. Show me the equivalent of the Vatican II council that expressed a more just and inclusive teaching towards non-Catholics, especially Jews. I realize Islam has no ultimate supreme leader, but still, you should be able to find conclaves of Muslim religious leaders that came up with a new, evolutionary, teaching of inclusiveness and acceptance. Surely?

Second Vatican Council... In the 1960s... Give Islam 560 years then get back to me...

[redhen]

Islam certainly has evolved from its origins, as pointed out by others.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that, what was the evidence again?

But can you really expect the religion to be as far along as other, older religions? You say they haven't evolved from Medieval mindsets: well, chronologically, they should be in the same place as the Christian world in the 1400s. If anything, I'd say they're further along than that (you can argue whether that's down to our influence or not; personally, I'm just glad that they are).

Well this is an unusual game to play, but I'm in. Ok, I'll go first. When was the last times Jews stoned someone to death under religious auspices? I'm guessing St. James, according to Josephus, so around AD 62.

When was the last times Muslims stoned someone to death under religious auspices? 2009, in other words it's not uncommon. Ironically this adulterer was executed by the state (Iran) even after the moratorium on stoning. So much for evolving....

Here's some other Muslim countries where stoning is applied for things like adultery.

Your turn.

[Setton]

I'm sorry, I must have missed that, what was the evidence again?

Unfortunately, I don't really have time to deliver an entire history course covering the Muslim world. Unless you plan on enrolling on such a course, I'd suggest google for you.

Well this is an unusual game to play, but I'm in. Ok, I'll go first. When was the last times Jews stoned someone to death under religious auspices? I'm guessing St. James, according to Josephus, so around AD 62.

When was the last times Muslims stoned someone to death under religious auspices? 2009, in other words it's not uncommon. Ironically this adulterer was executed by the state (Iran) even after the moratorium on stoning. So much for evolving....

Here's some other Muslim countries where stoning is applied for things like adultery.

Your turn.

Ah so we're going with Judaism now. Ok, let's see... Judaism estimated to begin c.1800 BC, so had been around for over 1800 years (using your date) before they stopped stoning. Islam founded c.600 AD so been around 1400 years at the time of the most recent stoning (actually this year not 2009). 400 years to go.

You're up.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Setton

[F3SS]

Let's try including the full statement: 'what's the difference as far as what people should legitimately fear?' Shouldn't you legitimately fear things based on their probability of actually harming you? Do you fear driving as much as you fear Muslim terrorists? You should fear it many-fold more than terrorists especially since you appear to be American, if you were actually taking into account the probability of being harmed by it.

I fear neither but am aware of both. The difference between the two is that nobody sets out to have a deadly car accident. Malice is almost a non issue concerning vehicles. Purpose, intention and malice is absolutely a part of terrorism. It's not about the probability. There are terrorists. They exist and they are hell bent on killing people. I can't understand why I can't be an angry American without getting a lecture on fairness and statistics and what Christians did in 1497. We have a problem that exists today and it can't be compared to bad driving. There is nothing that can stop stupidity and accidents. There is however something that can be done about a group of people with a particular belief system that are high on intentional murder and domination. I don't know what the fix is but the point is it's a problem that can be dealt with. We know the difference between good and bad and we know that they're a minority of Muslims. How come nobody gets all tolerant and liberal when someone condemns Mexican cartels? You never hear anyone screaming its not all Mexicans!!! Why? Because we know the difference. I think I had better points to make but I got lost in a rant and forgot what those were but seriously. Why can't the problem be identified and talked about without threads like this being made? Ahhhhh, you said muslim and terrorist in the same sentence! Bigot! Fear monger! Right winger! What else am I supposed to say?

Edited April 25, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[redhen]

Ok, let's see... Judaism estimated to begin c.1800 BC, so had been around for over 1800 years (using your date) before they stopped stoning. Islam founded c.600 AD so been around 1400 years at the time of the most recent stoning (actually this year not 2009). 400 years to go.

You're up.

Let's mix it up. I don't want to search around to find the last witch executed in Europe or Salem Mass,, but it's been a few hundred years. Meanwhile;

Dec 12, 2011

Riyadh- Saudi authorities beheaded a woman on Monday for practicing witchcraft and sorcery. The woman Amina bin Abdulhalim Nassar, was executed in Saudi Arabia's northern province of Al Jawf. The Saudi Interior Ministry announced news of the execution."

Praise Allah

[redhen]

I can't understand why I can't be an angry American without getting a lecture on fairness and statistics and what Christians did in 1497.

Because some people have a problem with scale and time. They somehow equate crusades, inquisitions and pogroms to a delusional parent who refuses medication to their dying child.

[F3SS]

Because some people have a problem with scale and time. They somehow equate crusades, inquisitions and pogroms to a delusional parent who refuses medication to their dying child.

There might be plenty of worthy discussion using comparisons and analogies concerning the history of the behavior of religions but it seriously has no place in the discussion of modern day terrorism and what to do about it. But if we are to look to history to talk about solutions to today's problems then the answer is simple. Brutal unrelenting force via profiling. I'd like a more civilized solution myself but might as well go with the flow of the conversation now. Shall we line the outskirts of our cities with impailed terrorists? Put their heads on spikes on our bridges? Swift, public capital punishment? Those things do work. We sure aren't going to love and tolerate the problem away.