TelePolis schreibt über das in den letzten Jahre drastisch gesunkene Ansehen der Muslime in Amerika und in Deutschland. ¹ Auch in meinem Bekanntenkreis höre ich immer mehr Bemerkungen, welche die aktuelle Situation krass vereinfachen und mit negativen Einstellungen gegenüber Muslimen und Arabern (sowieso alles dasselbe) einher gehen. Das ständige Dagegenstemmen gegen die verbale Schludrigkeit, mit der zuerst Rassissmus und Diskriminierung Vorschub geleistet wird, und mit der dann unschuldig-dümmlich jegliche Verantwortung von sich gewiesen wird (”Ich bin ja keine Rassist, aber...”) – das ist schon wirklich frustrierend.
In aller Seelenruhe werden alle Muslime in einen Topf geworfen, und mit einer fiktiven westlichen Gesellschaft verglichen. Hierbei wird verantwortungslos alles ignoriert, was derartige Holzfällermethoden eigentlich verbieten sollte:
Und so zeigt sich hier in unserer Gesellschaft meiner Meinung nach immer stärker, das wir im Kern genauso ungebildete Stammtischtäter geblieben sind, wie wir es schon immer waren, mit dem Vorteil, dass wir stärker, brutaler, und listiger dem Rest der Welt unsere Stempel aufdrücken können. Hierfür haben wir unsere Regierungen, die zum einen die Drecksarbeit erledigen, es uns zuliebe leugnen, und im Notfall können wir es immer den Amerikanern die Schuld in die Schuhe schieben. Und sobald sich die Sache wieder gelegt hat, kommt das fröhlich Stammtischphilosophieren über die Gewaltbereitschaft der Muslime (statt der Gewaltbereitschaft aller Menschen) und die Rückständigkeit ihrer Kultur (statt die Rückständigkeit so mancher armer Länder).
Nach solchen Diskussionen habe ich oft Lust, alles hinzuschmeissen, die Freunde abzuschreiben, und die Welt einfach zum Teufel zu jagen.
#Islam
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
I think we should talk about this. I really do.
– LionKimbro 2006-03-10 22:29 UTC
---
Religion ist eine persoenliche Angelegenheit und hat mit Politik, Staat, Rechtssprechung, Gesetzgebung nichts zu tun!
Leider kann ich nicht arabisch, aber es erstaunt mich schon, dass der Koran soviele Interpretationen zulaesst. Offensichtlich kann man da herauslesen, wenn man Andersglaeubige umbringt, dann kommt man ins Paradies und dort warten 70 Jungfrauen auf den Moerder. Ich hatte das schon mehrmals gehoert und es immer als einen Unsinn abgetan. Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich einen Film auf der Deutschen Welle gesehen, ich fand ihn sehr serioes, ueber einen palestinaensischen Selbstmordattentaeter, der mit Freunden den Koran studierte und er kam zu der gleichen Interpretation (er konnte interviewt werden, da er gefasst wurde, bevor er die Bombe zuendete). Sollte das wirklich so sein, es ist ja kaum zu glauben, so muesste man hier doch einige Korrekturen in dieser Heiligen Schrift vornehmen. Das ist ja nur ein Einzelfall, hier gibt es ja hunderte Beispiele von “Fehlinterpretationen”, denn ich kann mir kaum vorstellen, dass dies im Sinne von Mohammed war.
Der Fanatismus im Islam (den man offensichtlich auch aus dem Koran herauslesen kann?) ist meiner Meinung ein Ausdruck der politischen Unzufriedenheit und das vollstaendige Fehlen der Kenntnisse, sich mit demokratischen Mitteln auszudruecken.
Mit der Stellung der Frau im Islam habe ich ebenfalls Probleme!
Wenn man das mit der christlichen Kirche vergleicht, dann findet man dort in der Vergangenheit auch jeden Bloedsinn, Einmischung in die Wissenschaften, Hexenverbrennungen, Toetung von Andersglaeubigen, Ausrottung von Kulturen, etc. Schade ist nur, das der Lerneffekt aus all diesen Fehlern so gering ist. Das Thema ist ja endlos, ich mache Schluss!
– Helmut Schroeder 2006-03-11 04:07 UTC
---
Was ich nicht verstehe: Wenn man sowohl aus der Bibel als auch aus dem Koran jede Menge Blödsinn herauslesen kann, warum sollte man heutzutage dann auf dem Koran herumreiten, oder beispielsweise “Korrekturen” verlangen? An der Bibel verlangt ja auch niemand Korrekturen. Über die Stellung der Frau lässt sich in der Bibel nämlich auch jeden Schwachsinn finden – beispielsweise steht dort die Sache mit dem Kopftuch auch drinnen. Und deswegen hatte jede anständige Frau auch bei uns früher ein Kopftuch an.
Ich stelle mir einfach vor, diese Sorte von Diskussion würde in Anwesenheit meines Arabischlehreres oder eines muslimischen Freundes von mir geführt werden. Würde man auf die Anwesenheit eines gläubigen Menschen rücksicht nehmen? Ich würde! Ich halte ja schliesslich auch nicht jedem Christen die Idiotie gewisser anderer Christen oder gewisser Bibelzitate vor Augen.
Wenn ich also in Anwesenheit gläubiger Muslime mich zusammen nehmen würde, dann habe ich an mich auch den moralischen Anspruch, in Abwesenheit von gläubigen Muslimen einen respektvollen Umgang zu pflegen.
Wenn wir natürlich von konkreten *Verbrechen* reden, dann ist das etwas anderes. Dann können wir bewerten, urteilen, verurteilen – aber wie in den Gesetzen selber, taucht die Religion in solchen Diskussionen nicht auf: Mord ist Mord, Totschlag ist Totschlag, Diebstahl ist Diebstahl, und so weiter. Mit dem Rückgriff auf die Religion ist kein Verbrechen zu rechtfertigen, und genau dort will ich eine Grenze ziehen.
Was mich so endlos aufregt, sind Aussagen, welche auch unschuldige Muslime mehr und mehr in die Nähe von gewaltbereiten Verbrechern rücken. “Im Zweifel für den Angeklagten” scheint irgendwo in den letzten Jahren verloren gegangen zu sein. Und so demontieren wir langsam den Rechtsstaat, auf den ich stolz war.
Das die Menschen generell aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit so wenig lernen, ist sowieso ein Trauerspiel.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-03-11 09:22 UTC
---
Both the Bible and the Koran have wacky things in them. Be sure to check out the brick testament's demonstration. It is full of examples of horrible cruelty, taught in the bible.
the brick testament's demonstration.
We still have crazy Christians running around, trying to mess things up, trying to bring back “the old ways.”
The relevant difference is: Most people don’t pay any attention to them. They are a very very small minority.
The difference with Islam, at least as it seems to me, is twofold:
Individually, these are “pretty bad.” Taken together, I think it’s horrible and dangerous.
The Mormons, for instance, seek aggressive growth. (And I think they find it.) But they are not very imposing towards non-believers. They are generally very polite. Whereas lots (how many? I don’t know) of Islamic people want to not only make converts, but further, run the government, and impose their beliefs on non-converts.
I don’t think that there is anything intrinsicly wrong with the Koran, such that it can’t be modernized. I can imagine people of the Islamic faith, who do not feel that they have to oppress women, who have no sympathy for stonings & various other barbarisms, who do not feel the need to run the government, and so on. I am sure that these people exist, in every place in the world.
When I voice complaints about Muslims, my complaints are directed to those who either fully embrace the barbarisms, or, at the very least, are sympathetic to them, or seriously considering them as a viable way of life.
It’s not the religion in the abstract; It’s the people who are practicing the cruel form of the religion.
The criticism extends equally to the Christian community, but, by and large, we have far fewer people in the Christian community who are doing these sorts of horrible things. (Today.)
For example: People regularly draw farcical cartoons of Jesus, of events in the Bible, and so on. But there are no riots, no pleas to the government to make people stop, etc., etc.,. Occasionally you hear about a protest or something, but nothing really happens. You certainly don’t end up with dead people and buildings being burned down.
– LionKimbro 2006-03-11 15:31 UTC
---
However, it’s understandable that we have higher expectations for religion in our culture than for religion in faraway places. I’m more concerned about creationists trying to get their stuff in american schools than creationists trying to get their stuff in turkish schools (except if Turkey gets into the EU, which seems less likely now that they passed anti-blasphemy laws as reactions to the Danish cartoons). Look at the speck in your eye before pointing to the log in your neighbour’s eye, something like that.
The muslims, on their side, complain that the media only focuses on the negative things in the arab world – looking for the only women wearing a Hijab out of a street crowded with people wearing more “modern” clothes, etc. After the Danish cartoons thing, I looked around french muslim bulletin boards; they were (mostly) condemning the cartoons, but they were also outraged at the Iranian reaction of launching a holocaust cartoon contest (they had strong words for holocaust deniers, I don’t think any were around). They were also complaining about how the media was saying “Muslims don’t like the cartoons because it’s forbidden in Islamic culture to portray the prophet”, whereas they were pissed not at the fact of representing the prophet, but at the insults and mocking. I don’t agree with them (I think the cartoons were fine, and the newspapers who refused to reprint them aren’t that attached to their freedoms), but it does show that the way the media (and bloggers! I don’t think they’re much better!) portrays things isn’t always honest.
(As a side note, all the creationists I met back in France were Muslims.)
(Oooh, and by the way Alex: Thanks a lot for this occasion to brush up my german! I didn’t understand everything, and had to use a dictionary quite a bit, but that’s what I need 😄 )
– EmileKroeger 2006-03-11 17:28 UTC
---
Lion says, “[w]hen I voice complaints about Muslims, my complaints are directed to those who either fully embrace the barbarisms, or, at the very least, are sympathetic to them, or seriously considering them as a viable way of life.” I wonder: Why not say it the way you mean it? Why be sloppy in your use of the language, and voice complaints about Muslims, eventhough you only want to address those who commit barbarous acts? Why insult innocent people by associating them with barbarism? I call it “racism light” – with “plausible deniability” built in. Not all black people in the US are gangsters, not all Yugoslavians in central Europe are thieves, not all Italians are lazy, nor all Germans are hard-working, and not all Muslims are sympathetic or open minded towards such cruelties as a way of life.
Anyway, my original post was about my frustration at having to argue this point over and over again. I’m sick and tired of it. As I said previously, I don’t want to compromise in my moral stance on this, and yet my words don’t seem to be convincing enough. These two unfortunate factors coming together is my problem.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-03-11 17:59 UTC
---
I’d actually be really interested in a map of what clothing standards apply where: normatively (how do people generally dress?), socially acceptable (”you’ll get in trouble if you dress like this, but it’s ok,”) and legally. This interest goes universal.
That said, I’m particularly interested in knowing what it’s like in Islamic cultures. It sounds to me like you’re saying that women have lose requirements, in general, in the Islamic world. That’s not my understanding: My understanding is that it’s just various shades of “very strict.”
I agree that media portrayal has focused on the negative. And I think (and have complained, since way way back, as old enough as I was to understand,) that the treatment of Arabs in Hollywood movies have been horrible: They have been the universal scapegoat. I think a lot of what is happening now is due to those movies. I don’t think it’s “the media”’s fault, I think it’s also the US public’s fault for not complaining about it. The popular movie machine will only produce what the public will let them produce.
As for the cartoons: I’d like some clarity. I think that the majority of Islamic people actually want every country in the world to have laws that ban publishing images of the prophet. I grant that I don’t really know: This is something I would appreciate some clarity on. Further, it could be merely a reaction, rather than their well thought out position: They may not think it’s so important that these laws exist everywhere, in cooler times.
I am strongly attached to freedom, and that especially includes freedom to criticize religion, which also includes violating their taboos without legal response. I think allowances can be made for things like: “Are you publishing this on the front page, or on your t-shirt,” where people can’t avoid imagery they find offensive. But saying: “You can’t publish these pictures,” is totally bad. People need the freedom to communicate, to criticize, to express. The passages of perspective must be allowed to function. No religion or philosophy can write laws to put up impediments to the passages of perspective. To do otherwise is thought control, which is totally not okay.
– LionKimbro 2006-03-11 18:11 UTC
---
Alex: Did I use “Muslims” in the general? If so, you’re right: I should retract that. I *do* want to see where I said it in the general. I’m not suggesting I didn’t- I have so many conversations about this, I’d be surprised if, somewhere, I didn’t do it. My hope is that I can point out how the context of my expression demonstrates that I don’t believe this way about all Muslims.
That is: I am not a race supremacist. And if you’re going to say otherwise, I’m very angry about that.
My heavy criticism is directed towards:
My lighter, but still serious criticism, is directed towards:
My strong encouragement is for:
These ideas apply to pretty much *all people,* regardless of religion. The relevant different is that the Islamic population is a large established growing political force. Whereas, say, Christians, are very disorganized, and think very differently, depending on where they are.
A demonstration is in order: There haven’t been Christian riots and demands for censorship in other countries, in which people died, for ages. I try to think of a comparison, and I have a hard time finding it.
I think the ideal way that this could all play out:
By the end of the sequence, you end up with something like conservative christians in the US.
This is my hope.
You can do all this, without curtailing Free Speech anywhere.
– LionKimbro 2006-03-11 23:22 UTC
---
Re clothing standards: I’d also be interested in such a map; I have no idea of how things really are, since I haven’t traveled in those areas. I’ve only heard comments from people saying that they got quite different impressions from watching TV and from actually going there.
I’m not saying that women have loose requirements, in general, in the islamic world. It’s certainly not the case for places like Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. But things would probably seem more normal (to us) in Algeria, Morocco or Turkey (At least, not much worse than, say, in China or India). Though there are girls with islamic veils in france, most of the girls of arabic _ berber turkish origin I knew were pretty strong-minded, and not necessarily very religious. But then, that’s France, not an islamic country._
The cartoons: in the abstract, yes, a lot of people in Islamic countries would probably want blasphemy to be illegal all over the world. But you might find similar results when polling heavily christian countries that don’t have much experience with democracy; you’ll probably find some among the heavy-duty christians in the West (I certainly didn’t like hearing the Pope weight in on the wrong side of the cartoon controversy). OK, the difference is that Theo Van Gogh actually got killed. But I don’t know how many people think representations of the prophet should be illegal, and how strongly they hold that belief. I’d be interested in knowing. The comments I read on forums were a bit ambiguous, it’s hard to tell if they want images of the prophet to be illegal, or just peolpe to be responsible and avoid publishing offensive and insulting images even though it’s legal (a position shared by some western politicians, which I disagree with too - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those cartoons).
So, I don’t really know, and I’d like to (incidentally, I’m learning a bit of arabic 😄 )
– EmileKroeger 2006-03-12 06:45 UTC
---
I checked out Kuro5hin to see what people thought. There was a Muslim in there, who was posting. He said that he was a moderate, but argued that Free Speech requires limits, and not to blasphemy God was one of those fundamental limits.
’’there is something extremely important you all must understand, freedom of speech is good. i must be able to tell the most powerful man in the world he has done wrong, i must tell my neighbour the right or wrong way to do something. i must be able to express my opinion, but understand there is a limit. LIMITS. there is always a limit. draw the line somewhere. you dont want a loved one to tell you “you are coyote ugly”. nor would it be ethical for you to follow your army commander’s order to destroy every man, women and child in a village. there is a limit to the length of your life. there are limits in life. and one of those limits is to NOT blaspheme Allah or god as you might call him NOR his prophets. which btw, includes “jesus christ” whose real name is only jesus or isa (peace be upon him)in arabic. notice how muslims dont blaspheme against him?’’
That’s pretty damning, in my book: You can have freedom of speech. We just don’t dare defy **God,** because who are you, compared to God?
– LionKimbro 2006-03-12 15:51 UTC
---
That’s more or less the same kind of stuff I’ had read. It’s not clear whether he thinks that should be written in law (A view I very strongly oppose), or whether he thinks it’s up to individuals to act responsibly and voluntarily avoid pissing God off (a view I don’t like much, but can live with). That would be the same kind of responsibility of not writing stupid racist stuff in the newspaper, or saying in public how ugly you think your neighbour’s wife is - things that are covered by free speech (or should be), but not necessarily OK. If that’s what he means, I wish he would be clearer, I dislike anything on the lines of “free speech but with limits” - that sounds like “free speech, but not for topics other than the weather or football”.
The “You can have freedom of speech. We just don’t dare defy God, because who are you, compared to God?” suits me - I can say what I want and if I say something not OK, I get punished in the afterlife. Fair deal; won’t do much in terms of dissuasion though 😄
That guy seems to be saying “Look, we don’t make fun of Jesus, please don’t make fun of Mohammed” - problem is, we already make quite a bit of fun of Jesus, so why not Muhammed ?
I think a proper response to 9/11 would have been to have the government pay the people who make the Simpsons and South Park to make a movie making fun of Islam, Muhammed, and sexually frustrated muslims who become suicide bombers; and then distribute it royalty-free to the whole world. I don’t think it would have encouraged terrorists and given them a very high reputation in their own societies ...
– EmileKroeger 2006-03-12 17:04 UTC
---
My 2 cents:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Derni%C3%A8re_Tentation_du_Christ
I don’t really have time to write a nice essay about all that (nor to say all what I would have wanted)
Alex, about “Ich bin ja keine Rassist, aber…”, I think I’ve heard this all my life
– PierreGaston 2006-03-12 19:26 UTC
---
Swiss women gained the right to vote on a national level in 1971. (PDF)
There was speculation in TelePolis about the violent protests in Syria being staged by the government for domestic reasons. ¹
As for the limits to freedom of speech, I’ve already said everything I wanted to say, and I haven’t learnt anything new. I think that neither Lion nor Emile changed their mind, either. See 2006-02-06 Islam Comics.
I’ve also made clear my position towards obviously criminal acts, barbarous acts, etc. No need to repeat the obvious, here.
Sentences like “Islamic tolerance for cruelty to women is still very high.” or “I’m saying that I think that Muslims are, by and large, living a backwards way of life, and that they need to get with the times.” are examples of what I call “racism light”.
I’m not sure what a “race supremacist” is. The people showing signs of “racism light” are usually well educated, civilized, etc. They don’t support the Kluklux Klan, they don’t support Apartheid, they don’t call black people niggers. It’s “racism _light_” with plausible deniability. They don’t feel like racists, but if people of the other race, faith, or sex were to be present, they would feel hurt. That’s the measure I’m applying, here.
Should anybody want to split hairs on what racism is or is not: I don’t feel like discussing what a racist is, exactly. If we don’t agree on how to use the word, then that’s part of the problem, not part of the solution.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-03-12 23:13 UTC
---
Ich bin Rassist, aber I’m not a Race Supremecist; Rather, I fancy myself *culture aware,* because I have seen in my own life, that different patterns of thinking and living, lead to different results. That culture awareness is called “Racism,” though it has nothing to do with race at all; it is purely the product of several partners in conversation, who pin Race Supremecism on those they disagree with.
Wow, I guess the word Rassist has changed **so much,** that it’s lost almost all of it’s sting.
It **used** to be, that a “Racist” was someone who believed things like:
That was “racism.” It was something you didn’t want to be.
Now it’s “race supremacism,” or something like that.
Now, the thing is: The sting of the *first* meaning, *supremacism,* is *still associated* with the sting of the *second* set of meanings.
But, I guess that will change. “Racism” will no longer be a bad word, and instead, just be sort of common sense. Because the things *are* sensible. Integration is sensible. Thinking that culture, at least somewhat, *matters,* is sensible. Criticism of other cultures is sensible. Not always picking out the 3% is sensible. If those three things, are, indeed, “racism,” then I say: “Racism” will no longer be a bad word.
The only *weird* thing about the new definition, is that it’s not about “Race” at all, except in the case of integration. That it’s tied to Race, is *purely* an effect of those who want to associate observations, feelings, or criticisms that they don’t like, with Race Supremacism.
Would it be right for me to cow to such things? Well, if it’ll keep communication going, I suppose I *could* start my speeches with “Ich bin Rassist, aber I’m not a Race Supremecist; Rather, I fancy myself *culture aware,* because I have seen in my own life, that different patterns of thinking and living, lead to different results. That culture awareness is called “Racism,” though it has nothing to do with race at all; it is purely the product of several partners in conversation, who pin Race Supremecism on those they disagree with.”
Yeah, I guess that’s what I have to do. Because otherwise, I’m going to be receiving snide remarks like: “Oh, *you said* “I’m not a racist, but...” Well, we know what that *really* means. We know that that means that ’’you’re a racist.’’”
Let me tell you something. I grew up in liberal Santa Cruz, California. My dad was in the US army, speaks Arabic, and he served a long time in Eritrea, breaking codes. He reported intelligence about the six day war to the president, a few days before it started.
in liberal Santa Cruz, California.
He said he learned about the Palestinians, and he learned how horrible they were treated. He hated how Arabs were treated. He always taught me, as I was growing up, that what the media does to Arabs is wrong, and dangerous. He always pointed it out to me, and I always received the message.
We have a Koran in my dads house. It is written in both English and Arabic, so it’s an authentic translation. It gets (at least when I was living at home) the highest shelf in the bookshelf. My dad taught me to treat that book with special respect, (wash my hands before reading it,) which I did. I would pull it down and read from it, now and then.
My best friend’s dad is Islamic, (and no, he’s not Arabic,) and I’ve talked with him a few times about Islam. (This would be around 1990-1995.) His name is Michael Wolfe, and he wrote the Hadj: An American's Pilgrimage to Mecca.
Michael Wolfe, and he wrote the Hadj: An American's Pilgrimage to Mecca.
So look, you idiots: I’m not a racist. And I know my Sikh from my Muslim. I’m against all these negative media portrayals. **And I don’t appreciate being called a Racist.**
And I don’t even appreciate the *implication* of racism, by complaint of: “Oh, oh, you said: “I’m not a racist, but.”...” Because what you’re *implying* is: “This person’s just trying to get themselves off the hook, but we know, between ourselves, that this person is *really* a racist.
Dude: You can think that censorship is wrong, and that people should be able to write hate about anybody, without being a racist. You can criticize Islamic beliefs, and still not be a racist. *Especially* on that one, because it’s a fricken’ *religion,* and not a *race.*
You folk are shooting down the people you want to convert! Do you know how much I’d like to say: “This is all just a mistake of perception?” I’d *love* that to be the case. And I *know* I have insufficient information. I keep telling you: “I have insufficient information. Can you enlighten me?”
Most of the information I’ve been receiving as rebuttal, hasn’t been quite up to grade: I *still* believe that the Muslim in the K5 community thinks that punishing blasphemy against God should be **law.** I *still* think that, even if some small Christian cult performs some act of violence, *that the vast majority of Christians oppose it.* But when a sall Muslim group performs some act of extremist violence, *my perception is* that the majority of Muslims *are sympathetic, or at least open minded,* to the rightness of the action.
’’That’s’’ what I need more information, to counterdict. I need someone to say: “Lion, you’re perception is wrong, and here’s why.”
Here’s what I **don’t** need: “Lion, ergo, you’re a racist. It’s like a racial supremecist, but just a lighter version of that. Basically, you are on that road.” That’s what I don’t want.
Do you want to play fair, and contradict me? Great. Make fair plays, make fair moves. But this is just slime.
I realize you want to protect an underclassed people. **Me too.** I understand that.
If you want to argue: “People think this way, not because of Islam, but because they’re poor,” then **great.** I can understand that, and that makes sense to me. That’s something I’m open minded about.
Argue *right,* dammit. Don’t just go swinging around “racism” as if it’s a broadsword to dispell all arguments. “Oh, you disagree with me. And, you said you’re not a racist. Ergo, you are.”
So totally not fair. You’re not helping *any* side, arguing that way. Not unless you’ve got a *bona fida racist* in your hands. But this is so totally not the situation.
My concerns are things like *rights of women,* *freedom of speech,* *body politics,* *Democracy,* and *not living in a Theocracy.* (That last one’s pretty important, if you ask me.) You’re not going to dispell that by charging “racism!”
Putting it another way: If you think thoughts in your head, “Lion is a racist,” **I want to hear about it, right now.** I don’t want to go any further, until we’ve established that this isn’t about race. I don’t want to hear any creeping “Oh, my friends *also* say, ’I’m not a racist,’” with the implication: “But really, we know that they are. This concerns me deeply.” This is something we need to get **really clear on.**
So let’s hear it. Any lingering doubts? Anyone want to point to something I said, somewhere, perhaps, that was interpreted as racism? Perhaps I drew a picture somebody thought characatured people in a racist way? Or maybe some way of speaking that sounds “awefully familiar, like Joe, who was a white supremacist,” or something like that? Perhaps I looked at someone the wrong way, and it was interpreted as expressing racist sentiment, or something?
I want to be clear on this, because accusations about “racism” are real **conversation stoppers.** And I think this conversation we’re having about Islam, and globalization, and the media, and how we’re all going to live, and what not- I think this is a valuable conversation, and I want this space to be open for conversation.
So let’s get this conversation stopper out of the way. Allegations of being racist, **this is your time.**
– LionKimbro 2006-03-12 23:30 UTC
---
Lion, I don’t think you are a racist.
I’m not interested in debating the exact nature of racism. I’m using it in the broader sense of the word. The Anti-Racism law here Switzerland ², for example, explicitly lists race, ethnicity, and religion. I don’t care whether somebody is anti-semitic, anti-arabic, or anti-islam.
My main issue is that I don’t like verbal sloppyness when attributing bad characteristics to groups of people. You seem to disagree. I think precisely what you said: If such-and-such is an unflattering idea, then you should jump through 30 hoops to very precisely narrow down just who is who. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear enough.
Some people use the lack of precision to spread racist ideas, and then deny it when being accused of it. That’s why I think that the lack of precision when attributing bad characteristics is unacceptable. I want no part in a conversation where the premises are unacceptable to me.
Like in court: When in doubt, in favor of the disadvantaged part. If we are going to attribute bad characteristics, then I want to see statistics, and a discussion of these statistics. Everything else is just the discussion of prejudice. That also has its place, but I’d rather not have it on my blog.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-03-13 02:35 UTC
---
Lion: I pretty much agree with everything you said; I’m also uncomfortable with accusations of racism; I didn’t want to raise the topic because I didn’t think it’d get us anywhere. I don’t think accusations of “racism” or “fascism” are ever useful. I don’t think racism is a big problem in our societies (less than in the US a few decades ago, or maybe China or Japan). Yes, there are problems with ethnic or religious minorities, but no, solving them is not a question of people abandoning racist ideologies. That’s not to say that there’s no racist/xenophobia left, I just don’t think it’s the main ingredient of the problem.
Oh, and no, I didn’t intend to prove that the Muslim on kuro5hin didn’t want a law against blasphemy. I don’t know myself, and I think it’s fairly likely he does.
And I don’t agree with swiss law - people of one religion shouldn’t be any more protected from general criticism than people from one political party. That’s not to say that generalizations about muslims are any less wrong than generalizations about communists.
(For those interested: an essay on race from another “not-racist-but-ist”)
– EmileKroeger 2006-03-13 03:15 UTC
---
Emile: I was with his essay until the middle, when all of a sudden, it became a maze of nationalities that I know nothing about.
I think I take way more pride in geek culture and the Internet, than in anything else. I have no idea what my nationality is. I named my daughter Sakura, with the provision that it’s a teporary name- when she turns 13, she can choose a name for herself, or keep “Sakura” should she like it.
Alex: _ **Like in court: When in doubt, in favor of the disadvantaged part.** If we are going to attribute bad characteristics, then I want to see statistics, and a discussion of these statistics._
Agreed, and quite fair.
My exemption is: ’’I’m asking for those statistics.’’ I’m saying: “This is a *seeming.* Based on media that I know to be bogus, and based on what I saw in this forum here, this is the *seeming* that is forming in my mind. I’d like clarity on this, and I’d like statistics. I want to see polls, and analysis of said polls.”
I don’t know if this has the authority of *asserting attribution,* (claiming “People X have Attribute Y.”) It *does* hold the *danger* of “linking” – “There is an observation that X may have Y, and I’m concerned about this, and seeking understanding.” The danger is self-selection, noticing things in a way that confirms the suspicion, yadda yadda yadda.
If we figure out that the seeming is false, then the problem was an illusion, there was no problem. If it’s *confirmed,* then there is another question: What, if anything, to do, say, or think about it. It may still end up being: Nothing.
So, I’m all for gathering poll information, and other facts. And I can respect an argument of the form: “Expressing suspicion is intrinsicly dangerous. It’s best to hold it to yourself, until we see have facts.”
– LionKimbro 2006-03-13 05:12 UTC
---
The discussion is getting quite difficult now for my level of English. I am coming back to what I said in the beginning: politics and religion must be separated. This is not the case in many states where Islam is the state-religion or most of the people are Muslims.
The Koran contains legislation, jurisdiction and execution, as far as I know, so it is a complete package of how to govern a country or state. Since the various Islamic states have different legislation and jurisdiction (more or less adopted to the Charta of the United Nations or to now-a days international standards) then defined in the Koran, then none of these countries can actually live in harmony with the Koran (probably Saudi Arabia is closest to it, but still far away). All these governments can easily be criticized by pointing to the Koran, (and that is what the fundamentalists do,… the religion is the basis of the political opposition) because none of those states can live according to the rules of the Koran. If they would try to do so, they should be excluded from the United Nations, because laws and jurisdiction are in contradiction to Human Rights. Therefore, I think that the Koran needs to be updated, if the Islam is declared a state religion, in order to fit to the legislation, jurisdiction and execution actually in force in those countries.
Such a nonsense like the holy war, which apparently is somewhere stated in the Koran, is not to be found in the bible, if I remember right to my time at school, about 50 years ago. However, I know that crusades have taken place in the past, supported by the Catholic Church. At that time, the people were of the opinion, that Christianity is the only true religion on earth. If the Muslims are still thinking similar now-a-days of their religion, then I think they are, in this aspect, still as far behind as the Middle Age.
– Helmut Schroeder 2006-03-14 03:47 UTC
---
Well,... The Bible *also* has rules, very specific, about how people are to live. Legislation, Jurisdiction, Execution, just as you say. It’s got a ton of rules in it. Is it, too, in need of updating?
Legislation, Jurisdiction, Execution,
I think people can outgrow the outdated stuff in their canon, and keep the parts that give them strength.
– LionKimbro 2006-03-14 18:25 UTC
---
Of course, there are many things that would need to be updated in the bible. But in western countries the religion is private to each person and is separated from politics. So it is really a question of the Church, if she wants to do it and has nothing to do with government policy. There is no country that I know where the Christian religion is a state religion. The Bible can not be used as a reference to criticize the political system or to ask for changes in the government.
In Turkey is a Muslim country, but state and religion are separated. Very good, I agree to such a system. Unfortunately, I am not well informed about other countries (I would like to know more about it), but e.g.: Iran and Saudi Arabia, and many other states, are Islamic states. So they live in constant discrepancy to the Koran. Any problem will be taken by the people to protest against their government, using the Koran as a basis. And there are many contradictions between the Koran and the actual constitution of the state. This is and endless pot of disputes, because now-a-days no government can completely fulfill the Koran. The only solution that I see, is to make the religion a private matter of each individual and separate it completely from politics.
Coming back to the cartoons and the reaction in some Islamic states, we have to consider, that those riots who entered into buildings and set fire or destroyed the buildings where a very, very small minority (may-be some thousands on the street, so called “Adabei’s”, some 200 fanatics, agitating the mass, and may-be 20 to 40 people who actually entered the buildings for destruction. Idiots exist everywhere! I have no big problem with those idiots; of course I completely disagree with it. The bigger problem for me is, the open or secret tolerance of such actions (or the soft reaction) by the government of some Islamic states. And that’s all because religion and politics is not separated in those states!!! It is very difficult for the government to act against those protestors, which are in actual fact defending the official religion of the state.
– Helmut Schroeder 2006-03-14 23:31 UTC
---
“There is no country that I know where the Christian religion is a state religion” see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
In Greece the state and church are not separated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece
“The Greek Constitution reflects this relationship by guaranteeing absolute freedom of religion while still defining the “prevailing religion” of Greece as the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. In practice, the Orthodox Church and the secular state are intimately involved with one another in certain areas.”
There were large protests in Greece against the suppression of the mention of the religion from the ID cards, during the previous political elections, one of the campain events was related to flyers accusing the candidate of the PASOK of being atheist.
“But in western countries the religion is private to each person and is separated from politics” I wouldn’t say so.
More than one country was critizing the fact that the christian religion was not mention in the project of the european constitution
Even in the proudly secular France, one the main argument of people against the entry of Turkey in the UE is the fact that it’s not a christian country.
I don’t think that religion as no effect on USA politics as well.
– PierreGaston 2006-03-15 10:40 UTC
---
I think it’s perfectly possible for a state endorsing a religion to act against people breaking the law in the name of the same religion, because all religion requires interpretation.
– Alex Schroeder 2006-03-15 12:23 UTC