Do liberals think Islam should be protected from Criticism

[DrmDoc]

OK, so when the question is asked 'What can be done to improve Middle Easter Islamic societies?' you get about two serious answers, and then its right back to West bashing.

Seriously, in five pages we have only Waitforufo, CharonY and Willie71 who think there are some ways that Middle Eastern Islamic societies can be improved and brought into the 21st century ?

 

We must all agree with the OP question, then, because if things were so perfect there, people would be emigrating to the Middle East, not North America.

 

This answer to that question might be...that is for Middle Eastern Islamic societies to decide for themselves. Is it always an outsider's responsibility to insert himself into the issues of another nation or people without invitation?

Edited September 15, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ophiolite]

OK, so when the question is asked 'What can be done to improve Middle Easter Islamic societies?' you get about two serious answers, and then its right back to West bashing..

I have always thought that one of the strengths of the Western society is its ability to be strongly self critical. Therefore "West bashing" is an inherently healthy and self referential activity. You are asking, how can we encourage the same response within the ME. A good start might be to stop fucking with them.

 

Edit: It appears I have said the same thing as DrmDoc, though less politely.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Ophiolite

[MigL]

That's OK, Ophiolite, I'm not easily offended.

 

But I'm Canadian and I have no problem criticizing the US.

Neither do the Brit members . Nor Scotts ( can't leave Ophie out ).

 

So again, what are some of the criticisms of Islamic culture ?

[Willie71]

Probably the number one economic problem caused by Islam is their prohibition of usury. Not just unreasonably high rates of interest, money cannot be borrowed or lent at any interest rate. No country can have a modern economy without borrowing and lending money at interest.

 

Linked to the above is Islam's preference for feudalism. Probably the only political system that can function without usury. It's like muslims long to be surfs.

 

Please watch this video. It's about Syria before and after the war. Looked like a relatively modern society before the war. Again, the Middle East isn't a bunch of guys in tents with camels in the desert. Our media refuses to show what the Middle East actually looks like.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaN-kUucF4

The 19 9/11 hijackers were about as educated and exposed to western opportunities as it gets.

And it was a political act in retaliation for western intervention. Your point is?

[MigL]

And one could say that 'bombing them back to the stone age' is a also a political act in retaliation for Syrian acts against neighboring countries.

How exactly does that help move things towards a resolution ?

And that's not really the question posed by the OP, is it ?

 

The fact remains that millions of Middle Eastern Muslims are moving into Europe and North America.

Not only is this a humanitarian cause, but we actually need the immigration ( and D. Trump is an idiot ). One problem is that the people we need most, young, able bodied, working-age males, are also the most easily radicalized.

There are many other problems with the assimilation of large numbers of people of a dissimilar cultural background, and not all of them are OUR problem. Yet with the exception of a few people, and Tampitump's initial list, no-one has mentioned any problems that the Islamic culture ( yes, their religion is a BIG part of their culture ) puts in the baggage of these immigrants.

[Willie71]

I didn't say it was right. It was less about religion, and more about politics. That was my point.

[CharonY]

That's OK, Ophiolite, I'm not easily offended.

 

But I'm Canadian and I have no problem criticizing the US.

Neither do the Brit members . Nor Scotts ( can't leave Ophie out ).

 

So again, what are some of the criticisms of Islamic culture ?

 

 

Look, I have an issue with criticizing whole cultures as an isolated elements. The reason being that many people assume that a) "culture" is an inherent property to certain people, b) that is rarely or not changeable and c) they cherry-pick positive aspects of their own culture and contrast them to others and d) typically do not have in-depth insight about what they characterize as "culture" anyway.

As such it usually devolves into comparison of the caricatures of someone's assumed best elements with the worst of others without nuance nor insight.

Let us talk about women's rights, for example. How do the various societies stack up? Are the UAE identical to Saudi Arabia? How about Bosnia? Azerbeijan? Kuwait? Indonesia? Can we really get a meaningful discussion going here?

 

Also, I do not get the immigration thing. Conditions are different for different types of people. Saudia Arabia has recruited many academics from Europe and North America by offering tremendous salaries and opportunities, for example. There are also many unskilled labors that work under far more deplorable situations there. According to wiki a census in 2010 showed that 31% of the Saudi population are expats. So, yeah lots of people go there by following the money.

[MigL]

I don't get it CharonY.

We regularly criticize the US for their gun-loving culture.

If a large number of Americans were coming to Canada, you and I would have no problem identifying this aspect of American culture as one which might not mesh with Canadian values.

 

Why is it impossible to have this discussion with people who like to 'label' themselves and others as liberals, with regard to Muslim immigration .

That's the question posed in the OP, and the assumption seems to be accurate so far.

[Delta1212]

I don't get it CharonY.

We regularly criticize the US for their gun-loving culture.

If a large number of Americans were coming to Canada, you and I would have no problem identifying this aspect of American culture as one which might not mesh with Canadian values.

 

Why is it impossible to have this discussion with people who like to 'label' themselves and others as liberals, with regard to Muslim immigration .

That's the question posed in the OP, and the assumption seems to be accurate so far.

When we discuss gun violence in America, most Americans discuss it as one aspect of our culture, rather than the problem being because we are "Americans."

 

I don't often see the same level of nuance when discussing Islamic culture. It is not that I object to criticisms leveled at aspects of Islamic cultures. It is that I object to the broad strokes with which those criticisms are generally painted in our national debates.

[CharonY]

I don't get it CharonY.

We regularly criticize the US for their gun-loving culture.

If a large number of Americans were coming to Canada, you and I would have no problem identifying this aspect of American culture as one which might not mesh with Canadian values.

 

Why is it impossible to have this discussion with people who like to 'label' themselves and others as liberals, with regard to Muslim immigration .

That's the question posed in the OP, and the assumption seems to be accurate so far.

 

There is a difference in so far that the discussion is actually fine grained. For example we are talking about US gun culture (a small subset of US culture) and contrast it with Canadian or UK one. If we did that with Islam and e.g. discuss it at the same level and insight and detail I would have no problem. For example, if we discussed differences of e.g. feminism in Turkey vs Kuwait, vs Bosnia vs Saud Arabia, for example and using relevant news or other lit, I would have much less of a problem. The issue is that most (all?) of us have little more knowledge about the situation over there than we have on the US or Canadian discussion on gun ownership/violence 2nd amendment rights than we have of equivalent aspects of the various Islamic cultures (which certainly are not homogeneous).

I am happy to be educated on these aspects, but I refuse to issue blanket statements based on my own ignorance.

 

The real equivalence would be if we were seriously discussing that Americans are a danger to Western values since they all have guns and like to kill people, while citing selective the cases where e.g. gun owners made questionable choices resulting in unnecessary deaths (or the death penalty, while we are at it). This is, of course ridiculous. Yet we do not feel that if we discuss something that we have far less knowledge about.

Edited September 16, 2016 by CharonY

[Over 9000]

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."

 

Try "Nazi". Does it feel generalizing or bigoted?

[iNow]

Try "Nazi". Does it feel generalizing or bigoted?

Skin color is genetic. Religion is mostly cultural. Hatred and bigotry, however, is simply ignorant. To be clear, I'm perfectly okay being intolerant of intolerance. It's not my fault if you associate yourself by choice with an ignorant group and worldview and take this personally.

[Over 9000]

Skin color is genetic. Religion is mostly cultural.

 

So if we can't generalise about genetic statuses (we can of course) but we can generalise about cultures, why can't we generalise about Islam, but can generalise about Nazism?

 

Hatred and bigotry, however, is simply ignorant.

 

Hatred is not necessarily "ignorant". It's an emotion people feel. I guess your trying to imply that people who disagree with you feel the emotion of "hatred" for no reason and that's why they have a different opinion. Bigotry means failing to update views in the face of contradicting information. Unfortunately to the left these are just meaningless names they call their opponents.

 

To be clear, I'm perfectly okay being intolerant of intolerance.

 

So society should tolerate everything, except people who don't tolerate eveything? How do you square this with practices of law enforcement? Must we really tolerate everything? Are there any things, besides intolerance, we can reasonably not tolerate?

 

It's not my fault if you associate yourself by choice with an ignorant group and worldview and take this personally.

 

I'm not trying to claim any group association. I'm just showing that your argument can be applied to tolerate Nazism. I guessed that you don't like Nazism, but that you like Islam, so it kind of exposes the thin veneer of superficial logic you place over your subjective opinions. I am making this simple point. It seems irrefutable to me. You can fly off the handle and call me "ignorant" for no reason if it makes you feel better.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[Moontanman]

I see no reason to protect any religion from criticism, in fact critically examining religion is IMHO exactly what should be done. We cannot afford to be tolerant to those who are intolerant..

[Over 9000]

I see no reason to protect any religion from criticism, in fact critically examining religion is IMHO exactly what should be done.

 

Agreed.

 

We cannot afford to be tolerant to those who are intolerant.

 

But otherwise we should tolerate everything? We should only not tolerate "intolerance"? If there are any other things we are not tolerant of, then we are by definition intolerant of things other than intolerance.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000

[Ten oz]

I don't get it CharonY.

We regularly criticize the US for their gun-loving culture.

If a large number of Americans were coming to Canada, you and I would have no problem identifying this aspect of American culture as one which might not mesh with Canadian values.

 

Why is it impossible to have this discussion with people who like to 'label' themselves and others as liberals, with regard to Muslim immigration .

That's the question posed in the OP, and the assumption seems to be accurate so far.

My family can say many things about me I wouldn't tolerate co-workers or strangers saying to me. My parents regular criticize personal details about my life. They (family) vocally critize everything they please, lol.

 

Western Culture is a family of sorts. We have shared history, language, political traditions, religious practices, diets, music, style, an etc, etc, etc. That is not the case between Western Culture and Islamic Culture.

 

When I criticize Western Culture I do so as a member of it and from a place of lived experience and knowledge. The same simply isn't true if I were to criticize Islamic Culture. My criticism for Islamic Culture would come from a place of ignorance and ad populism positions centered around Western Culture values. In other words it is rude.

 

And it doesn't help matters that we have and have had soldiers on the ground in their backyard.

[Moontanman]

 

Agreed.

 

 

But otherwise we should tolerate everything? We should only not tolerate "intolerance"? If there are any other things we are not tolerant of, then we are by definition intolerant of things other than intolerance.

 

 

We should tolerate anything that is benign, tolerating something that interferes with significantly with civilization or results in harm to humans cannot be tolerated.

 

I am very tolerant of dogs, even stray dogs, dogs that are not submissive but live independent and react aggressively trifled with can also be tolerated. But a dog that goes around attacking people cannot be tolerated, despite my love of dogs such dogs must be removed from the population.

 

But fundamentalist religion is intolerant of all who disagree, in fact their goal is to force everyone else to follow their way of life often by violence. Tolerating this is like tolerating a rabid dog. It simply cannot be done if you want to live...

[MigL]

Whoah, Ten oz, that was two months ago.

We have bigger fish to fry now than Islam.

We have the Trump situation, and how both you and I said it could never happen.

Try to keep up.

[Ten oz]

Whoah, Ten oz, that was two months ago.

We have bigger fish to fry now than Islam.

We have the Trump situation, and how both you and I said it could never happen.

Try to keep up.

Our attitudes towards Islam and Islamic countries were part of this election cycle and action to stop all immigration from Islamic countries until further notice is part of Trump's first 100 days in office plan. So I think it is part of the fish.

[swansont]

Try "Nazi". Does it feel generalizing or bigoted?

Nazi-ism is a much more narrowly defined ideology. It's not a generalization if an attribute is a defining characteristic of the group.

 

If someone started a movement that hated tall people (anyone over, say, 2 meters), you would not be generalizing anyone in that movement if you said they were against tall people. There are no sub-factions that disavow it. Rejecting that ideology is not painting with a wide brush, and it is a rejection of intolerance.

[Ophiolite]

Nazi-ism is a much more narrowly defined ideology.

After much reflection I cannot find this to be true. The elements of Nazi philosophy and political thinking that we recall, the ones that are rightly condemned, are arguably narrow. However, their thinking on economic and social matters was much broader than that.

[swansont]

After much reflection I cannot find this to be true. The elements of Nazi philosophy and political thinking that we recall, the ones that are rightly condemned, are arguably narrow. However, their thinking on economic and social matters was much broader than that.

Fine. I'll state the obvious.

 

Regarding the issues of tolerance that we're discussing, Nazi-ism is a much more narrowly defined ideology.

[Ophiolite]

Fine. I'll state the obvious.

 

Regarding the issues of tolerance that we're discussing, Nazi-ism is a much more narrowly defined ideology.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. If it was so bloody obvious I would have noticed it.

[Delta1212]

Don't get your knickers in a twist. If it was so bloody obvious I would have noticed it.

I, uh, thought it was pretty obvious what he was talking about?

[Ophiolite]

I, uh, thought it was pretty obvious what he was talking about?

I have no meaningful reply, but do not wish you to think I was ignoring your remark. (There is a flaw in swansont's argument, but frankly I don't want to spend the two hours it would require to expose it, so work on the basis that on this point I'm full of shit and can be safely disregarded.)