Prejudice or Perspicacity? Racist or Realist?

[Bettina]

I'd probably do away with the last one altogether. And the first one is grammatically incorrect, but I guess that's not the point. None of those are particularly bad on their own, though they don't make a "case against Islam" and shouldn't be used as such. It might be a good idea to be more specific than just "Islamic." Perhaps "Salafist" or something, where appropriate.

 

"All creationists are evil?" Got that from you know who.

 

I looked up "Salafist" in Wiki and it says "The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (French Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat, also known as Group for Call and Combat) (Arabic الجماعة السلفية لدعوة والقتال) is a militant Islamist group which aims to overthrow the Algerian government and institute an Islamic state.

 

No matter how you change the word, it always comes back to a militant Islamic group. The "case against Islam" is what this is all about and I know I've been cursed for what I say here, with more than just some wishing I would leave, but I am very much a realist and I just can't run away.

 

When I look at Afghanistan where the "teachers" in school would read out of the Koran the very words that teach young boys to hate and prepare for holy war against unbelievers, it bothers me big time. Those kids don't know right from wrong. Today, in my short time, holy war is associated with Islam and some here find that very statement offensive.

 

There are also people here who have a big problem with creationists but not all creationists are evil. I know that for a fact because I have been preaching creationism to a large audience for five years now. Nowhere on this board do I see that called racism, prejudice, or whatever.

 

I see those little kids in church hanging on my every word and when they leave, they go home and play video games. They don't practice Jihad.

When I say that Islam is evil I don't mean that all Muslims are evil. Just the religion and yes, I still believe that as long as those words are still being preached, and sadly..... fighting terrorism means fighting radical Islam.

 

I don't know where I'm even going with this and right now I just don't care what anyone sasys anoymore.

[ParanoiA]

you're wrong. Justl iek any religion their are people who take certain parts of the religion and use it to brainwash people. Their are racist tendencies in most religious teachings if you look deep enough. Are there some bad muslims' date=' sure there are, are all muslims bad because of the few? not a chance.

 

I used to live in the deep south of the U.S. and i ran into entire towns where black people were not welcome. I have been harassed, embarrassed and held unlawfully for no good reason. I have seen white people grab their purses as i passed by for no reason. Yet i don't run around forums preaching about how evil and racist white people are. youk now why because i know all white americans are not racists and hateful pigs even though a percentage of the white american population is.

 

If i came on here and said that white people are truly the cause for the worlds problems and i can provide links to show white people causing problems would that still justify me saying something like that? hell no it wouldn't. And if i said it i would be ready for any consequence this [b']private forum, which i dont have any right to be on or say anything on [/b]decided to deal out to me.

 

I think you are justified to say white people are the cause for the world's problems when you provide links or substance to your claim. That's the point. If the subject matter is sensitive for you, then it is you that should not participate. No one should be limited intellectually, as long as it remains intellectual. When folks start mouthing off racial epithets and name calling then that is obvious racism.

 

To judiciate the dynamics of a racial matter, we should require substitive arguments - not limit the integrity of the debate. That's all I'm saying.

 

I simply believe Islam is a racist religion, fundamentally - which is worse. Probably because it was written about the time the Jews were persecuting Arabs, if I remember correctly. Europe had shown them nothing but misery.

 

Christianity, to my knowledge, has no racist theme in any part of the bibles, let alone fundamental racism. Although, the practitioners of christianity were certainly racist as hell and many are still today. I can't claim the religion is so, nor does it teach that way.

 

Religion is dangerous and plagued with death and oppression all throughout history. I don't like any of them. But I only see racism in the teachings of Islam.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know where I'm even going with this and right now I just don't care what anyone says anymore.

 

You go girl. I believe Reza Aslan said that the Islamic culture is about 500 years behind christianity. If you trace chrisitianity's history of violence and oppression, you'll see that Islam is following a similar path. So maybe that means they'll eventually give up this crusade thing...

[Jim]

Everyone's talking about censorship and banning and free speech in this thread because I expressed a concern about doing my moderator job fairly.

 

Yes, but your job was to squelch what someone said. That raises issues of free expression by its very nature. Maybe it's justified in some cases but I do not believe so here.

 

I'm thinking I should split these comments off into a thread of their own asking if people think it's prejudicial to judge all of Islam based on what radical Muslims are doing. Or why it's OK to discriminate this way because terrorism is so horrible.

 

Two strawmen in a row, at least w.r.t. my p.o.v.

 

 

 

I would like to understand because no one has convinced me that it's OK to let it slide in this instance. Policy is what I have to make sure we can discuss these issues among so many varied members with intellectual honesty. It has less to do with what's offensive and more to do with not setting double standards and hopefully creating an atmosphere where members can understand without feeling threatened by narrow mindsets.

 

Well, you might start with the actual arguments I've made rather than a characterization of "judging all of Islam based on the radicals." I was sorry to see my answer to the "gang" question didn't make it over here. I would have liked to have had answers to that hypothetical.

 

My point has been that in large part we have a meaningless debate over semantics when we say the problem is, or is not, Islam. What the heck does this even mean?

 

If I had my druthers, we'd have a much more secular world. I'm willing to tolerate religious beliefs so long as the members of the various faiths keep it from landing in the form of a bomb in my lap.

 

Here we have a religion that was founded and expanded through mliitary conquest, has historically not been an advocate of the separation of church and state, speaks of "infidels" and "jihads" and, at least in Britain (kind of funny how that poll isn't mentioned much in this discussion), the present day attitude does not respect liberal western democatic traditions as much as other groups. When you say a problem is, or is not, with the religion, how is that analyzed?

 

I don't think we're limited to the actual words of the founder, although that is not entirely comforting in this case. I think we can look to what the founder actually did when he was alive and what has happened since then with respect to the traditions on which this species is, or is not, going to survive.

 

So the policy is what again?

 

Shall I split these comments off to start the thread?

 

I appreciate your doing so. I think this is a very important issue in terms of the value I derive from this board. I need to know where the lines are with respect to what can and cannot be said about Islam.

[Jim]

I think self[/i']-censorship is rather healthy. If you think you are going to offend someone with your comments, then before posting you should ask yourself if you really want to offend them. If not, don't post.

 

We all need that little voice in our head that keeps us from making an ass out of ourselves; still, policy by a government or a discussion board which chills free expression on perhaps the most important issue of our day, is not necessarily healthy.

[Jim]

Are all KKK members guilty of beating or terrorizing minorities? Of course not. But that also doesn't mean that their views on white power are harmless and it's just extremists poisoning an honest and decent way of life.

 

There are things about the Muslim religion that separates it from most' date=' in my opinion and apparently others too. It has a racist and oppressive tone its teaching. No, that doesn't mean that every Muslim is therefore a terrorist, but it [i']does[/i] mean there is an inherent problem with their belief system - much like the KKK.

 

And no I don't think it's racist to point that out. I think it's dangerous not to...

 

You raise a good point: If all discrimination in our comments is to be banned on this forum, can anyone here be critical of the KKK? I assume so but do not know why.

 

Could Richard Dawkins post here?

[ParanoiA]

You raise a good point: If all discrimination in our comments is to be banned on this forum' date=' can anyone here be critical of the KKK? I assume so but do not know why.

 

Could Richard Dawkins post here?[/quote']

 

I think we should never avoid pursuit of the truth for any reason at all. If that means we have to adjust our ideas of offense, then so be it. How can we be sure something isn't true if we censor it's subject matter altogether?

 

We shouldn't just ignore the truth because it will offend people by its very nature. Then we're doomed to the negativity it causes until we are ready to face it.

 

The negativity could be as dramatic as war and poverty for generations upon generations.

[Sisyphus]

We have rules that you can't post for the purpose of intentionally provoking someone's anger, or "trolling." When it looks like someone is doing this, an admin generally asks the person to be civil. If they persist, they can be banned, temporarily or permanently. Is that censorship? If so, then I think it's a reasonable form of it. Anyway, it's an honest question.

 

Even the ACLU will have me removed from their lobby if I just stand there screaming obscenities...

[ParanoiA]

We have rules that you can't post for the purpose of intentionally provoking someone's anger' date=' or "trolling." When it looks like someone is doing this, an admin generally asks the person to be civil. If they persist, they can be banned, temporarily or permanently. Is that censorship? If so, then I think it's a reasonable form of it. Anyway, it's an honest question.

 

Even the ACLU will have me removed from their lobby if I just stand there screaming obscenities...[/quote']

 

Yes, I completely agree. I also understand that the line between an intellectual argument and an obscene one is subjective. Trolling or just trying to make people mad isn't really racism, in my mind, it's just juvenile behavior that we can certainly do without.

 

It's also easily recognizable and dismissable.

[Phi for All]

You raise a good point: If all discrimination in our comments is to be banned on this forum, can anyone here be critical of the KKK?

Groups like the KKK or the Neo-Nazis are active discriminators, all of them. The decision has been made long ago that these groups, by definition, preach prejudice and discrimination and are therefore not protected as a group, at least for SFN's purposes. Every member of those groups feels that way and the group has no identity without their oppressive goals. If a Neo-nazi or KKK memeber comes onto these boards and makes racial remarks, they will accrue warning points towards being banned.

 

But Islam is diffferent. Not all of it's members act or think like the radical members, and I still haven't been shown that Islam will settle for nothing less than total conversion or annihilation of all unbelievers.

 

We had an instance recently where a new member was challenged on a Physics post and he chose to attack the member who challenged him with a racial remark.

A Scot. 18 years old and a future 17 years behind him arready.

It wasn't necessarily slanderous but it had no basis other than being prejudicial. He objected to the challenge because the member was "a Scot", and young so his opinion shouldn't matter. This new member was given a Racist / Prejudice Remarks warning. Should the staff continue to discourage this type of posting? It's not for anyone's sensitivity level or because we think you can't handle it, but these types of comments derail a good thread and everyone starts bickering rather than arguing or debating. It is not about protecting anyone from opinions, it's about keeping level heads while debating and exploring.

 

So how long before Muslims who post here are pre-judged as unworthy because of their religion? How long before we can just assume that a Muslim's opinions are beneath our notice since they must be plotting to kill us? Why should the anti-Muslim comments be allowed if the anti-Scottish are not?

[Martin]

We have rules that you can't post for the purpose of intentionally provoking someone's anger, or "trolling." When it looks like someone is doing this, an admin generally asks the person to be civil. If they persist,...

 

Good thread. About this point, one reason the framers of the US constitution put in "separation of powers" is because people are FALLIBLE.

even excellent people make mistakes with surprising frequency.

 

in message boards (this is general: applies all over the web I think) it is a very good necessary thing to censor trolling

but the very definition (as you put it) involves imputing an INTENTION to someone, so it is inherently subjective.

 

so you can get cases (maybe not specifically in this board but as a general possibility) where someone in the power club (some staff or mod or whatever) comes vigorously into an argument and is emphatically asserting some position

 

and someone else---who may objectively know as much and be as smart, or may not, it doesnt matter---might rise up and CHALLENGE them, and angers eventually flare

 

so it can happen that this ordinary citizen eventually gets a warning----and they feel it is unfair because they were NOT just trolling: they really thought the staff or mod should be challenged and that their language wasnt any more or less rude than the mod's----so they can get antagonized or they can eventually get banned or just voluntarily go away.

 

I think this can happen by nobody in particular's fault but simply by the weakness of human nature and the necessary subjectivity of human judgment. it is normal fallibility and you need systems to compensate

 

If I was advising someone on the startup of a message board I think I would advise a SEPARATION OF POWERS

where there is appointed an advisory board of one or more judges who have zero power and are not CRONIES of anybody with power, and whose job is simply to say if somebody is being intentionally rude and trying to anger someone else. that judge or board can give an advisory ruling.

 

so you dont have the same person get into the argument, and then be the judge AND jury AND executioner where he or she or a buddy is actually involved in the argument in the first place!

 

What I'm trying to avoid is where you have a staff or mod who is actively involved in some contentious discussion----which in itself is great, it is fun to have lively arguments and it is to be encouraged that mods take part---and suddenly tempers flare and the staff or mod takes offense and then issues a warning or gets a buddy to issue a warning. Or even something that sounds like a veiled threat.

I don't think that is right---too much chance of mistakes and injustice. The practical penalty is that the community loses potentially valuable contributors.

I think cases of alleged trolling and flaming should be refered to someone who is independent and who was NOT IN THE ARGUMENT.

 

Of course in a small community it could sometimes be difficult to find a disinterested non-combattant:-)

 

this might not be appropriate, or work, at SFN, and it might not work in every case at every message board. it is the "independent judiciary" idea. the danger is you might appoint an incompetent judge or judges---motivated by bias or personal loyalty

[ParanoiA]

I think that post by Annexus20 is obviously shallow, with no real substance. He hasn't backed up his claims with any intellect.

 

And the similarities between Islam and KKK are debatable...literally. I don't know what the outcome will be if we don't discuss it.

 

Your post on this issue is an example of articulating a genuine point about the subject. Why should anyone else's genuine points about the subject be cast aside simply because it's not pro-Islam?

 

Lastly, what if the KKK's teachings weren't recognized the way they are today? What if we never questioned it because it was viewed as prejudice or pre-judging all KKK members? That would be silly. Islam embraces racism just as badly as the KKK does, they're just more focused on those they're against. They also don't hide under hoods.

 

But like the KKK, Muslims don't endorse terrorism and murder and they don't go out of their way to denounce it either. Just a little lip service ever now and then.

[GutZ]

I have been reading abit about Islamic religion, and from what I've read it hasn't promoted anything that most western media insinuates. It's message is mostly about peace, tolerance, and justice. The recent attacks would most likely contradict the teachings.

 

Session Details

Guest Name Dr. Jamal Badawi

Profession Director: Islamic Infromation Foundation

Subject “Muslim and Non-Muslim Relations: Plurality and Jihad”

Date Wednesday,Oct 10 ,2001

Time Makkah

From... 21:15...To... 22:15

GMT

 

Question As muslims what are we now suppose to do?

Answer AAWW

1. Condemn the crime of Sept. 11 as Muslims since it violates Islamic teachings and moral standards.

2. Demand justice and punishment of those who planned it or KNOWINGLY helped in it.

3.To clarify that justice requires conclusive evidence to be presented before an impartial court of law, due legal process and refraining from acts that are likely to hurt the innocent, either directly or by creating confusion and fear resulting in even more while having a slim chance of catching the culprits.

4. Clarify that war is not the best solution, and that opposition to such a policy does not mean being [with the terrorists] as many Americans are also debating war as an option.

5.Clarify that the war option is likely to make things worst, cause more resentment in many countries and may make it easier for extremism to spread.

6. Clarify that the best, but more patient strategy to deal with such violence is to review foreign policy, deal with perceived injustices and as such remove its causes.

Allah knows best.

 

We all know that for something to be true you have to have some evidence to support it, making generalization about a religion and assuming that the actions of people define what a religion is without proof isn't being a realist. In this case I would say that Phi for All is correct with his assessment of that particular situation.

[Severian]

There was recently a bit of fuss in my home town when a physicist was fined £200 for calling a Professor of ethics a 'Nazi'. (see eg. this Scotsman article)

 

Personally I find this a strange decsion. The ethics professor reporting the 'crime' clearly demonstrated that he was a facist, so Nazi isn't too far off the mark.

 

Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been avoided if Dr Khan had been more civil.

[Jim]

Groups like the KKK or the Neo-Nazis are active discriminators, all of them.

 

 

Yes, but I thought you were against discrimination against any group?

 

 

The decision has been made long ago that these groups, by definition, preach prejudice and discrimination and are therefore not protected as a group, at least for SFN's purposes.

 

You touch on the real issue here. Not whether it is ever appropriate to deal with a group on a collective basis, of course it is sometimes appropriate, but when is it appropriate?

 

THis is an issue which has not been analyzed on this forum but is behind the "yes, it's Islam; no it's not; yes it is" discussion.

 

But Islam is diffferent. Not all of it's members act or think like the radical members, and I still haven't been shown that Islam will settle for nothing less than total conversion or annihilation of all unbelievers.

 

You make yet another strawman while ignoring almost all of my entire post which states what I do believe. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

We had an instance recently where a new member was challenged on a Physics post and he chose to attack the member who challenged him with a racial remark. It wasn't necessarily slanderous but it had no basis other than being prejudicial. He objected to the challenge because the member was "a Scot", and young so his opinion shouldn't matter. This new member was given a Racist / Prejudice Remarks warning. Should the staff continue to discourage this type of posting?

 

Strawman #2: That I said the forum shouldn't discourage racist or personal personal attacks.

 

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a post ago.

 

So how long before Muslims who post here are pre-judged as unworthy because of their religion?

 

Strawman #3.

 

How long before we can just assume that a Muslim's opinions are beneath our notice since they must be plotting to kill us?

 

I'm not sure if this is strawman #4 or just an extremely weak slippery slope argument.

 

Why should the anti-Muslim comments be allowed if the anti-Scottish are not?

 

It depends on the actual statement. If it is something like, "all Muslims are mentally inferior to white Okies," yes. If the statement is, "there is a problem with Islam," I do not think so.

[Phi for All]

I think that post by Annexus20 is obviously shallow, with no real substance. He hasn't backed up his claims with any intellect.

So if he cites ten links that try to prove all Scots are stupid he gets to post that here? If you back up your prejudices with an attempt at intellect, will it make the other members less likely to want to tear your head off?

And the similarities between Islam and KKK are debatable...literally. I don't know what the outcome will be if we don't discuss it.

Very little of what I object to is "discussion". It's the opinions that are cut and dried that border (if not encroach) on prejudice.

Your post on this issue is an example of articulating a genuine point about the subject. Why should anyone else's genuine points about the subject be cast aside simply because it's not pro-Islam?

False dilemma. I'm not saying you have to be pro-Islam, I'm saying that being anti-Islam because of it's radical members is prejudiced and that I see no reason why Prejudiced / Racist Remarks warnings shouldn't apply.

Lastly, what if the KKK's teachings weren't recognized the way they are today? What if we never questioned it because it was viewed as prejudice or pre-judging all KKK members? That would be silly. Islam embraces racism just as badly as the KKK does, they're just more focused on those they're against. They also don't hide under hoods.

Please prove to me that "Islam embraces racism just as badly as the KKK does". Not just some members of Islam, but all of Islam as you have used it in this case.

[ParanoiA]

For your reading pleasure...

 

This is from the Koran. These are specific to Jews. There are even more which deals with the Jihad against infidels.

 

"3.112" : Abasement is made to cleave to them (the Jews) wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.

 

"5.51" : O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for

friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them

for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the

unjust people.

 

"5.82" : Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for

those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are ΠpolytheistsΠ, and

you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to

be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and

monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

 

2:65 And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated.

2:66 And We made it an example to their own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the God-fearing.

 

7:166 So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed!

 

 

So if he cites ten links that try to prove all Scots are stupid he gets to post that here? If you back up your prejudices with an attempt at intellect, will it make the other members less likely to want to tear your head off?

 

Well sure. Why not? If it is actually true that all Scots are stupid, then why should we ignore that fact? That is a genuine argument based on substance. And the links don't necessarily prove it anyway, they just support the argument. And who cares if it makes the other members want to tear a person's head off? That's their own problem. What if I want to tear your head off because I was insulted by you when you said my point was a "false dilemma"? Is that my problem or yours?

[Jim]

So if he cites ten links that try to prove all Scots are stupid he gets to post that here? If you back up your prejudices with an attempt at intellect, will it make the other members less likely to want to tear your head off?

 

I see you are seizing on the KKK analogy, having ignored my answer to your Gang analogy. I don't blame you for seeking surer footing.

 

Very little of what I object to is "discussion". It's the opinions that are cut and dried that border (if not encroach) on prejudice.

 

Yet another criteria with which we many censor ourselves: the level of specificity and detail of the statement. What if a poster makes a conclusory post, e.g. "Islam has a problem" but also has a history of expressing the background behind that opinion?

 

 

False dilemma. I'm not saying you have to be pro-Islam, I'm saying that being anti-Islam because of it's radical members is prejudiced and that I see no reason why Prejudiced / Racist Remarks warnings shouldn't apply.

 

As a general matter, every person deserves to be judged on his or her own merits. However, at a policy level, sometimes decisions have to be made with respect to groups.

 

Many people like Richard Dawkins are anti-religion, period. They believe that religion in general is unhealthy to our species.

 

If Richard Dawkins could post here (a question you ignored in your rush to talk about the extreme example of the KKK) that there is a problem with all religions, why can't I post about a specific religion that was founded and expanded with violence, does in its text not recognize the separation between church and state and has a recent history of not successfully curtailing it's fringe elements? If I can be prejudiced against religion in general, why not against a particular religion?

[Jim]

We have rules that you can't post for the purpose of intentionally provoking someone's anger' date=' or "trolling." When it looks like someone is doing this, an admin generally asks the person to be civil. If they persist, they can be banned, temporarily or permanently. Is that censorship? If so, then I think it's a reasonable form of it. Anyway, it's an honest question.

 

Even the ACLU will have me removed from their lobby if I just stand there screaming obscenities...[/quote']

 

I agree with this completely. On the philosophy forum there are ocassional posters who go out of their way to repetitively slam religion in general. If the moderators believe the intent is to provoke, not express a genuine belief, I agree a warning should be issued.

 

Phi is proposing a far broader standard.

[YT2095]

I wouldn`t be doing justice to my DOMAPA qualification if I didn`t call this thread 6"

[Phi for All]

You touch on the real issue here. Not whether it is ever appropriate to deal with a group on a collective basis' date=' of course it is sometimes appropriate, but when is it appropriate?

 

THis is an issue which has not been analyzed on this forum but is behind the "yes, it's Islam; no it's not; yes it is" discussion.[/quote']I'm going to go with "Innocent until proven guilty" then.

You make yet another strawman while ignoring almost all of my entire post which states what I do believe. Perhaps you could clarify.

Perhaps you object because I'm not really interested in what you believe in this thread, I'm interested in deciding a point about our policy, and honoring your request to discuss it openly with the membership. And maybe it's not *your* remarks (and especially not your beliefs) that prompted this thread.

Strawman #2: That I said the forum shouldn't discourage racist or personal personal attacks.

I used a recent example to show some of the ways we enforce the Prejudice / Racist Remark policy. Does everything seem like a strawman to you? I was trying to find out why that remark was any different from some of the anti-Islam remarks we've had lately.

Strawman #3.

You think it's a strawman to ask about attitudes against Muslims when we already have examples against Scots?

I'm not sure if this is strawman #4 or just an extremely weak slippery slope argument.

Why, because it only *may* happen? Isn't that what I've been arguing about, that if we allow remarks about all of Islam to stand unchallenged, that it will be like any other discriminatory situation?

It depends on the actual statement. If it is something like, "all Muslims are mentally inferior to white Okies," yes. If the statement is, "there is a problem with Islam," I do not think so.

I'll say this again. If we don't stop the spread of the Islamic religion, its going to kill us, and I do mean kill us.

How about this one, Jim? Seems to fit the Prejudice / Racist Remarks parameters and even has a hint of possibly violent discrimination thrown in for good measure.

[Phi for All]

Phi is proposing a far broader standard.

I'm merely asking why posting remarks that condemn all Islam for the acts of some of it's radical members shouldn't fall under our policy. There are plenty of ways to discuss this rationally without resorting to language which pre-judges all members of this religious group.

 

And if it can be argued that all Islam is like the Nazis and the KKK then I'll be happy to drop it. I just feel it's hypocritical to enforce the policy against Scot-haters or black-haters or gay-haters and not Islam-haters. If you don't hate all of Islam then why would you want to make discriminatory remarks that encompass all of Islam?

[ParanoiA]

I'll say this again. If we don't stop the spread of the Islamic religion' date=' its going to kill us, and I do mean kill us.[/quote']

 

How about this one, Jim? Seems to fit the Prejudice / Racist Remarks parameters and even has a hint of possibly violent discrimination thrown in for good measure.

 

Yes this fits the prejudice / racist remarks parameters. But did you just leave out the substance part of this post?

[ParanoiA]

I'm merely asking why posting remarks that condemn all Islam for the acts of some of it's radical members shouldn't fall under our policy. There are plenty of ways to discuss this rationally without resorting to language which pre-judges all members of this religious group.

 

And if it can be argued that all Islam is like the Nazis and the KKK then I'll be happy to drop it. I just feel it's hypocritical to enforce the policy against Scot-haters or black-haters or gay-haters and not Islam-haters. If you don't hate all of Islam then why would you want to make discriminatory remarks that encompass all of Islam?

 

But it's not about hate. It's about disagreement. I mean' date=' Islam may be hateful or racist, but [i']I'm[/i] not because I point it out. Scots are people. Blacks are people. Gays are people. Islam is a religion. If people define themselves by it, then that's their problem isn't it?

 

I haven't seen anyone address Muslims, but rather Islam. There's a difference.

 

By the way, did you read the quotes I provided from the Kuran? You said if it can be argued that Islam is like the Nazis and the KKK...

[Phi for All]

Yes this fits the prejudice / racist remarks parameters. But did you just leave out the substance part of this post?

Here's the whole post:

Not one bit. Because it doesn't relate. Killing a little girl for lust is much different than beheading people for religious reasons' date=' or spitting on allah, or drawing a cartoon. Show me in my posts where there is a similarity.

 

Bettina

 

Edit... I'll say this again. If we don't stop the spread of the Islamic religion, its going to kill us, and I do mean kill us.[/quote']And here's the whole thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18232&page=2