Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

I have started this thread as it was a major branch from a thread on irrational ideologies of the liberal left

from here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98459-irrational-ideologies-of-the-left/

Apologies the software doesn't allow for a nice looking start to the new thread to be made because we cannot create duplicate posts

imatfaal

Islam - One of many religions I find to be preposterous and unworthy of respect. I criticize it all the time. Many liberals now think that Islam should be exempt from such criticism on the grounds that it is "racist" or "bigoted". I say screw those liberals. I have the right to criticize anything I want. True discussions cannot take place when free speech is prohibited. This should not be confused with a hatred towards muslims. I recognize that the people who are affected by the absurdities of Islam the most are other muslims. It is, I think, the single most illiberal and oppressive belief system on the planet in this day, and that the relatively high support of doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world is indicative of its incompatibility with secular, western values. There is nothing bigoted or racist about that statement. True liberals should be speaking against the doctrine of Islam, and sticking up for women and children in the muslim world, instead of engaging in the stupid fallacies of moral-relativism and postmodernist nonsense to try and excuse this type of behavior in the name of political correctness. My position is merely an honest recognition of the obvious. People who deny the barbarism of Islam, and the relatively high support for its more heinous prescriptions in the muslim world are engaging in the highest obscurantism. That's my opinion on that.

....

Islam - One of many religions I find to be preposterous and unworthy of respect. I criticize it all the time. Many liberals now think that Islam should be exempt from such criticism on the grounds that it is "racist" or "bigoted".

Citation needed. Or is this is some sort of straw man argument?

It is, I think, the single most illiberal and oppressive belief system on the planet in this day, and that the relatively high support of doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world is indicative of its incompatibility with secular, western values.

It sounds as if you don't know much about Islam beyond some newspaper caricatures.

There are, of course, Muslims who hold such views. But then there are Jews, Christians or atheists who hold similar reprehensible views. But I assume you have some data that shows Islam to be worse in this respect? Or is this just an opinion (that we can therefore ignore as having no value).

There is nothing bigoted or racist about that statement.

Describing all members of a group in a way that could be considered negative, when clearly there are a range of views in that group sounds a lot like the definition of racism and bigotry.

True liberals should be speaking against the doctrine of Islam, and sticking up for women and children in the muslim world

I'm sure there are plenty who do. There are also many Muslims who stand up for the rights of women and children. (But perhaps, like ISIS, you don't consider them to be Real Muslims? )

I have never met one man who wasn't unequivocally supportive of women doing anything they want to do.

I find that hard to believe. I mean, if true, it is great that you live in such an enlightened part of the world. But, sadly, it isn't true everywhere.

Black lives Matter - I better let Milo handle this one:

I have no idea who "Milo" is or what he has to say. Why can't you tell us what you think?

[Tampitump]

Citation needed. Or is this is some sort of straw man argument?

It sounds as if you don't know much about Islam beyond some newspaper caricatures.

And you seem to have a unicorn version of Islam informed by Reza Aslan and Cenk Uygur. I do not get my info about Islam from newspapers. I listen to people on all sides of this debate, from Noam Chomsky on one end of the spectrum, to Sam Harris on the other.

 

 

 

There are, of course, Muslims who hold such views. But then there are Jews, Christians or atheists who hold similar reprehensible views. But I assume you have some data that shows Islam to be worse in this respect?

Of course I agree with this. Good job appealing to the low-hanging fruit for your argument. And you accuse me of straw-manning? There is no doubt Christian doctrine holds the exact same prescriptions for barbarism as Islam. Christianity has been bombarded by secularism and forced to reform. Most Christians only conform to the sweet, soft versions of Jesus' words and don't enforce the barbaric passages. Even the ones who do are nowhere near of the scope and scale of equivalent fundamentalists in the Islamic world.

 

 

Describing all members of a group in a way that could be considered negative, when clearly there are a range of views in that group sounds a lot like the definition of racism and bigotry.

Fully agree. Good thing I'm not doing that. Criticizing an idea is not the same as criticizing people for their skin color, ethnicity, or nationality. I see Islam as an idea as being like any other idea. If your ideology is not Islam, but supports things like the murder of apostates, female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexuals, and the oppression of women, I don't want to you around me, at least not until you've shed those ideas. Has nothing to do with being a bigot. I recognize that the most people hurt by Islamic atrocity are other muslims. I want to save these people from the poison of this ideology.

 

 

I'm sure there are plenty who do. There are also many Muslims who stand up for the rights of women and children. (But perhaps, like ISIS, you don't consider them to be Real Muslims? )

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ Just take a gander at how many people in the Muslim world support cutting off the hands of thieves, killing people who leave the faith, stoning as the appropriate punishment for adultery, and that sharia should be the law of the land. I'll grant you that many muslims don't support this barbarism, and you'll still be on the loosing end of this argument. Poll results paint a very illiberal picture for adherents to this ideology.

 

 

I find that hard to believe. I mean, if true, it is great that you live in such an enlightened part of the world. But, sadly, it isn't true everywhere.

Okay, whatever. You still lose. The "patriarchy" as it is defined by third-wave feminists is a total myth. Their ideology is irrational. The idea that there is a systemic, patriarchal conspiracy against women is just total bullshit. I don't deny that somewhere in the country, there are sexist pigs who discriminate against women, but there are just some things women don't excel at, that men do. Conversely, there are many things women tend to excel at the men do not. For instance, the nursing profession is dominated by women. Sounds like a feminist conspiracy against men if you ask me.

 

 

I have no idea who "Milo" is or what he has to say. Why can't you tell us what you think?

I'll tell you what I think. I think YOU are exactly the kind of regressive liberal I'm referring to. Everything in this post of yours proves my point. You think I'm a bigot for having these opinions, you tacitly expressed it. When I criticized Islam, you immediately went to Christianity and Judaism in the most obscurantist fashion. You can't stand that I would have the tenacity to call out these people, their religion, and their culture for their atrocious ideals, and you are engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations with muslims.

 

You don't realize how much you just proved my point with your post here. By reacting to me as if I were an ignorant bigot and defending Islam and all the other things I'm attacking is part and parcel of what I'm talking about. Nothing I said was bigoted, hateful, or racist. I'd be happy with a muslim as my next door neighbor, or even one of my best friends if they dropped the barbaric parts of Islamic doctrine. These are attacks on what I feel to be irrational ideologies, not on people.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tampitump

[Endy0816]

The Koran preaches tolerance towards other People of the Book. What is irrational about that?

[DrmDoc]

Islam - One of many religions I find to be preposterous and unworthy of respect. I criticize it all the time. Many liberals now think that Islam should be exempt from such criticism on the grounds that it is "racist" or "bigoted". I say screw those liberals. I have the right to criticize anything I want. True discussions cannot take place when free speech is prohibited. This should not be confused with a hatred towards muslims. I recognize that the people who are affected by the absurdities of Islam the most are other muslims. It is, I think, the single most illiberal and oppressive belief system on the planet in this day, and that the relatively high support of doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world is indicative of its incompatibility with secular, western values. There is nothing bigoted or racist about that statement. True liberals should be speaking against the doctrine of Islam, and sticking up for women and children in the muslim world, instead of engaging in the stupid fallacies of moral-relativism and postmodernist nonsense to try and excuse this type of behavior in the name of political correctness. My position is merely an honest recognition of the obvious. People who deny the barbarism of Islam, and the relatively high support for its more heinous prescriptions in the muslim world are engaging in the highest obscurantism. That's my opinion on that.

 

I'm not piling on here, but have you ever talked to a Muslim or read the Quran? I have. I don't subscribe to their ideology or any other than my own; however, that hasn't stop my curiosity in wanting to know their truths rather than what's forced upon me by the media, religious fanaticism, and unapologetic bigotry.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Tampitump]

The Koran preaches tolerance towards other People of the Book. What is irrational about that?

Umm...nothing. What the Quran's policy of tolerance towards people NOT "of the book"?

[DrmDoc]

Umm...nothing. What the Quran's policy of tolerance towards people NOT "of the book"?

 

As I recall, it speaks of a deep respect for and connection to other faiths, as well as, a fervent regard for female virtue, which is unlike the corrupt version radicals appear to espouse.

[Tampitump]

 

I'm not piling on here, but have you ever talked to a Muslim or read the Quran? I have. I don't subscribe to their ideology or any other than my own; however, that hasn't stop my curiosity in wanting to know their truths rather than what's forced upon me by the media, religious fanaticism, and unapologetic bigotry.

I have muslim friends I see at my local library all the time. Wonderful people, I have no problem with them. Still doesn't change my position about the doctrine.

 

I never watch the "media" you are referring to. I don't get TV, cable, Dish, DirectTV, or any means of watching TV where I'm at. Though I do watch tons of youtube. I usually get my information from public intellectuals, books, poll results, and just reading as much information as I can. My position is not that all muslims are bad, or that all Islamic doctrine is bad. My position is that I DO have problems with the doctrine, and I reserve my right to criticize them, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong. Many modern liberals (and I've had it happen to me so many times on social media and in public) want to denounce people like me as a "racist bigot", and champion for my free speech being taken away. This is an attempt to stifle debate, and to put down people who may have legitimate objections to things. I'm a staunch opponent of postmodernism, 3rd wave feminism, cultural-relativism, moral-relativism, and anti-free speech positions. I consider myself Hitchens-hawkish, and Sagan-smart (though I'm not nearly as smart as these guys).

 

That's it. I'm a liberal guys...a LIBERAL. I'm just a more thoughtful, non-dogmatic liberal who doesn't think that anyone who insinuates that Islam is violent or intolerant is a racist bigot. I agree that Christians are often bigoted against muslims, and though they would probably side with me on this debate, they would do so on the grounds of their own ignorant, religious beliefs. Their answer to bad, absurd religion, is more bad, absurd religion. Christians don't criticize Islam because they want to rid the world of harmful religious dogmas, they do it on the grounds of promoting their own ancient, dogmatic, absurd, religious bullshit. There is not a topic in this world that is beyond my right or ability to criticize. Its time Islam be given equal criticism opportunities as Christianity. Most liberals never pause to call out white, conservative Christians, but if you want to criticize muslims for their beliefs, often times you get considered a "bigot". I've experienced this too many times. I see it in our culture. If it were a white man from Kentucky adhering to fundamentalist Islam, he'd be equally subject to my criticism as someone who is brown-skinned and from the middle east. The LAST thing I am is racist.

 

It just boils down to the fact that we must be able to talk honestly about the most important dangers that face us. Right now, I feel the Islamic world needs the help of liberals to reform. We have to recognize the oppression of women, homosexuals, atheists, secularists, children, and all sorts of other groups. Instead of doing this, many liberals today deny this traits about Islam, and think you are a bigot for implying as much. They don't realize that they are throwing these people under the bus, the women who are treated so poorly, the children who are genitally mutilated, the homosexuals who are thrown from roofs and stoned, etc. They are excusing these offenses to human rights in the name of political correctness, and they can stick it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tampitump

[DrmDoc]

I have muslim friends I see at my local library all the time. Wonderful people, I have no problem with them. Still doesn't change my position about the doctrine.

 

I never watch the "media" you are referring to. I don't get TV, cable, Dish, DirectTV, or any means of watching TV where I'm at. Though I do watch tons of youtube. I usually get my information from public intellectuals, books, poll results, and just reading as much information as I can. My position is not that all muslims are bad, or that all Islamic doctrine is bad. My position is that I DO have problems with the doctrine, and I reserve my right to criticize them, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong. Many modern liberals (and I've had it happen to me so many times on social media and in public) want to denounce people like me as a "racist bigot", and champion for my free speech being taken away. This is an attempt to stifle debate, and to put down people who may have legitimate objections to things. I'm a staunch opponent of postmodernism, 3rd wave feminism, cultural-relativism, moral-relativism, and anti-free speech positions. I consider myself Hitchens-hawkish, and Sagan-smart (though I'm not nearly as smart as these guys).

 

That's it. I'm a liberal guys...a LIBERAL. I'm just a more thoughtful, non-dogmatic liberal who doesn't think that anyone who insinuates that Islam is violent or intolerant is a racist bigot. I agree that Christians are often bigoted against muslims, and though they would probably side with me on this debate, they would do so on the grounds of their own ignorant, religious beliefs. Their answer to bad, absurd religion, is more bad, absurd religion. Christians don't criticize Islam because they want to rid the world of harmful religious dogmas, they do it on the grounds of promoting their own ancient, dogmatic, absurd, religious bullshit. There is not a topic in this world that is beyond my right or ability to criticize. Its time Islam be given equal criticism opportunities as Christianity. Most liberals never pause to call out white, conservative Christians, but if you want to criticize muslims for their beliefs, often times you get considered a "bigot". I've experienced this too many times. I see it in our culture. If it were a white man from Kentucky adhering to fundamentalist Islam, he'd be equally subject to my criticism as someone who is brown-skinned and from the middle east. The LAST thing I am is racist.

 

It just boils down to the fact that we must be able to talk honestly about the most important dangers that face us. Right now, I feel the Islamic world needs the help of liberals to reform. We have to recognize the oppression of women, homosexuals, atheists, secularists, children, and all sorts of other groups. Instead of doing this, many liberals today deny this traits about Islam, and think you are a bigot for implying as much. They don't realize that they are throwing these people under the bus, the women who are treated so poorly, the children who are genitally mutilated, the homosexuals who are thrown from roofs and stoned, etc. They are excusing these offenses to human rights in the name of political correctness, and they can stick it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned.

 

I can understand a problem one might have with certain religious doctrine, what I don't understand is how one can have a problem with something they've never read for themselves or have discussed or investigated through a knowledgeable and trusted source. The scientific method frames all my interests including foreign philosophies and ideologies. It's my always my objective to reach a clear, fair and balanced perspective of whatever I investigate. If a subject is worthy of my opinion, then it is worthy of my thorough investigation. You appear to have very strong opinions with very little investigative interest in support of them. I presume your fine with that?

Edited September 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Tampitump]

You still fail to understand where I'm coming from. Even if I'm wrong about Islam, and Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful, my positions still stand. What I'm saying is that no one should be put down for criticizing any idea. Many liberals now want to slap the label "bigot" on you for even mentioning it most of the time. I just watched a statement from Hillary Clinton at my grandparent's house where she called half of Trump's supporters "deplorable, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic....." and all the other "phobics" you can think of. She might be right, but many of these labels are generated to stifle debate, and to deprive free speech. It's a way of silencing legitimate criticisms of these things that liberals like to ignore. Most liberals want to ignore the barbarism of Islam. Mentioning the possibility that some muslims are, in fact, not peaceful or supportive of western values kills their narrative of high-brown, elite, bleeding-heart liberalism, so they ignore these parts of the muslim world and call people "bigots" for mentioning them in order to end the debate. This is true whether Islam is violent or not. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful for the sake of this conversation, and you'll still be on the wrong end of the argument.

[Endy0816]

Nobody is ignoring them, but it is reasonable not to attack an entire group based on what some misguided individuals choose to do.

 

At the very least there is the practical matter of having Muslim allies who are best positioned to combat these scourges. Sermons, reaching out to troubled youth, informing on terrorist recruiting efforts, etc.

[DrmDoc]

You still fail to understand where I'm coming from. Even if I'm wrong about Islam, and Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful, my positions still stand. What I'm saying is that no one should be put down for criticizing any idea. Many liberals now want to slap the label "bigot" on you for even mentioning it most of the time. I just watched a statement from Hillary Clinton at my grandparent's house where she called half of Trump's supporters "deplorable, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic....." and all the other "phobics" you can think of. She might be right, but many of these labels are generated to stifle debate, and to deprive free speech. It's a way of silencing legitimate criticisms of these things that liberals like to ignore. Most liberals want to ignore the barbarism of Islam. Mentioning the possibility that some muslims are, in fact, not peaceful or supportive of western values kills their narrative of high-brown, elite, bleeding-heart liberalism, so they ignore these parts of the muslim world and call people "bigots" for mentioning them in order to end the debate. This is true whether Islam is violent or not. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful for the sake of this conversation, and you'll still be on the wrong end of the argument.

 

Unfortunately, the opinions we express sometimes result in unfavorable and unwelcomed assessments of our character. Some of us are sensitive and take offense to opinions opposite our own and that too is unfortunate. However, the only opinion I find offensive are those delivered in deliberate ignorance of facts with harmful intent. Certainly a disinterest is facts is deliberate. I heard Mrs. Clinton's speech and understand the furor it has raised albeit delivered in offense to only the bigoted "half" of Mr. Trump's voters. It might be suggested that only those in the half to which Mrs. Clinton was referring should be offended; however, the perception is that she was referencing all of Mr. Trump's supporters, which is a very clear misstep. There is a lot of needless anger and enmity expressed during this election that shouldn't be held above what is best for our nation and our people. I think we know enough about both candidates to make the proper decision. Ideology aside, our reason should prevail over our emotions.

[iNow]

Try a little experiment. Use the Find/Replace function to change the word "Muslim" to the word "black" or "female" in all of the comments you write/read/see then read those comments again.

 

If it feels wrong or generalizing or bigoted, then that is the same feeling you should be having even when that text says "Muslim."

Edited September 13, 2016 by iNow

[Tampitump]

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump

[Endy0816]

So members have differing beliefs, some of which you respect?

[Willie71]

You still fail to understand where I'm coming from. Even if I'm wrong about Islam, and Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful, my positions still stand. What I'm saying is that no one should be put down for criticizing any idea. Many liberals now want to slap the label "bigot" on you for even mentioning it most of the time. I just watched a statement from Hillary Clinton at my grandparent's house where she called half of Trump's supporters "deplorable, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic....." and all the other "phobics" you can think of. She might be right, but many of these labels are generated to stifle debate, and to deprive free speech. It's a way of silencing legitimate criticisms of these things that liberals like to ignore. Most liberals want to ignore the barbarism of Islam. Mentioning the possibility that some muslims are, in fact, not peaceful or supportive of western values kills their narrative of high-brown, elite, bleeding-heart liberalism, so they ignore these parts of the muslim world and call people "bigots" for mentioning them in order to end the debate. This is true whether Islam is violent or not. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that Islam is perfectly peaceful and wonderful for the sake of this conversation, and you'll still be on the wrong end of the argument.

You are not being criticized for criticizing an idea. Islam is a complex evolved and evolving religion. It is not a single monolithic ideology. The failure to distinguish different interpretations as being different ideologies and lumping them togerpther is coming from a place of ignorance. To lump together such a wide variety of ideologies and expressions of ideologies into one monolith meets the definition of bigotry because of this inaccurate generalization. Criticize fundamentalist Islam, especially Wahabbism, and no one will challenge you. Claim fundamentalist Islam is worse in the western world than fundamentalist Christianity, and you will be challenged. Fundamentalist Judaism is problematic in some areas, but simply because there are fewer Jews than Christians or Muslims the net effect is smaller.

 

I'm not sympathetic to any of these fairy tales, but the majority of people who label themselves any of these groups are usually culturally religious, not having ever read the texts themselves. They gather at holidays, know the nice stories, and believe the love, peace, kindness messages that each claim to harbour. To claim the Muslim version of this group is ideologically dangerous is intellectually vacuous.

[imatfaal]

I have started this thread as it was a major branch from a thread on irrational ideologies of the liberal left

 

 

 

Islam - One of many religions I find to be preposterous and unworthy of respect. I criticize it all the time. Many liberals now think that Islam should be exempt from such criticism on the grounds that it is "racist" or "bigoted". I say screw those liberals. I have the right to criticize anything I want. True discussions cannot take place when free speech is prohibited. This should not be confused with a hatred towards muslims. I recognize that the people who are affected by the absurdities of Islam the most are other muslims. It is, I think, the single most illiberal and oppressive belief system on the planet in this day, and that the relatively high support of doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world is indicative of its incompatibility with secular, western values. There is nothing bigoted or racist about that statement. True liberals should be speaking against the doctrine of Islam, and sticking up for women and children in the muslim world, instead of engaging in the stupid fallacies of moral-relativism and postmodernist nonsense to try and excuse this type of behavior in the name of political correctness. My position is merely an honest recognition of the obvious. People who deny the barbarism of Islam, and the relatively high support for its more heinous prescriptions in the muslim world are engaging in the highest obscurantism. That's my opinion on that.

....

 

from here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98459-irrational-ideologies-of-the-left/

[dimreepr]

This type of hate filled rant, only comes from frightened little people with little or no knowledge of the topic at hand or a politician trying to get his/her vote

[swansont]

 

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented

 

 

 

Isn't stoning the prescribed method of execution for adultery in the Bible? How is this an Islamic thing?

[Willie71]

To the OP, liberals criticize Islam all the time. We just don't generalize it to all of Islam or all Muslims. The argument that seems to offend the conservative minded is the defence of the majority of Muslims who are not radical fundamentalists. Liberals have a bias toward supporting the underdog, and in western culture, Islam is demonized and somewhat powerless. Liberals do not have that manichian perspective that is inherent in conservatives. Defending most Muslims from persecution =/= defending radical fundamentalist Islam. We should have learned something from WWII. Trump certainly did.

[Strange]

 

So a straw man argument then. Thanks for confirming it.

 

And you seem to have a unicorn version of Islam informed by Reza Aslan and Cenk Uygur.

 

I have no idea who those people are.

 

I'll tell you what I think. I think YOU are exactly the kind of regressive liberal I'm referring to.

 

That is very sweet of you. I'm touched.

 

You can't stand that I would have the tenacity to call out these people

 

Oh, careful. Remember: you are not a bigot because you are attacking the idea, not the people.

 

 

I'd be happy with a muslim as my next door neighbor, or even one of my best friends if they dropped the barbaric parts of Islamic doctrine.

 

Ah yes, the old "some of my best friends are black" argument. Haven't heard that since the '70s I think. Even then it was seen a classic cliche that bigots would come out with.

[MigL]

And what percentage of people actually believe stoning is an appropriate response for adultery in North America, Swansont ?

How do they compare to the Islamic world ?

 

In post #12, iNow makes the interesting assertion that if you replace 'Muslim ' with the word 'Black' or 'female', and it sounds wrong then it is bigotry, as it is a generalization.

What if you replace it with the word 'Conservative', as does happen quite often in this forum ( and possibly the word 'Liberal' in some different forum down south ).

Is that not a generalization as well ?

And if the argument is that the majority of conservatives are enabling the nutbars by their silence and support, then, cannot the same argument be applied to all of Islam ?

 

Or is it only OK to be bigoted when you consider yourself an 'enlightened Liberal' and it fits your own personal world view.

[DrmDoc]

 

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented

 

 

Those are remarkable statistics and, yes, sample sizes do matter. Those polls may indeed reflect the mindset of a small sampling of people in those specific countries. However, if you're interest is a fair and balanced perspective, do you really think the opinion of a small group of individuals speaks for an entire nations of people? Put in perspective, do you think the numbers in our country's current political polling is an accurate reflection of your thoughts or the thoughts of our nation? I agree, opinion polling can be a useful tool but not quite as useful in uncovering the facts or tenets of a truth or idea I'm investigating. What a small group of people believes may not reflect the beliefs in their doctrine or the beliefs held by billions of people worldwide. Opinion polls reflect what may be in the minds of those believers but not necessarily what's in their religious text. I get that religious fanaticism spawns bad people and violent behavior, but their ignorance is an insufficient excuse for our own--in my opinion.

[swansont]

And what percentage of people actually believe stoning is an appropriate response for adultery in North America, Swansont ?

How do they compare to the Islamic world ?

 

 

Is your argument that North American Christians are not actually that religious, because they don't follow what's in the Bible (or pick and choose what they want)? Or that they have found more subtle ways of punishing people for having sex (like denying them healthcare)?

 

Bit that's moot. The issue brought up was Islam. If you are going to call out the Quran for something, it should be something that's not also in the Bible.

[MigL]

And Tamitump is not addressing the Quran vs the Bible.

He's addressing the mindset of people who claim to follow those particular religions.

[Delta1212]

And Tamitump is not addressing the Quran vs the Bible.

He's addressing the mindset of people who claim to follow those particular religions.

What percent of American Muslims believe stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery?

 

If we're going to approach this with some semblance of science, let's at least try to control some variables like regional, cultural and political influence.