The only problem I have with Islam is Muslims pushing the narrative that it's the religion of peace when Abu Bakr and the caliphates following Muhammad has clearly shown it's not
Maajid Nawaz is by no means a 'perfect', orthodox Muslim. But, uh, isn't that kind of his point? That Muslims should think and live a bit more freely, because at the end of the day the Qur'an is a 1400-year-old book (be it the omnipotent word of God, of a holy man, or simply a man, depending on your outlook) written for 1400-year-old people, and many of the lessons it teaches are no longer applicable to modern society?
The Qur'an says a [I]lot[/I]- it's a big book, after all- and it contradicts itself just like the Bible does. I understand that many Muslims follow the rule that any contradictions are resolved by obeying the chronologically latest statement, but that's complex as well. There's a reason why people do entire degrees just to study this book and what it says.
At the end of the day, the Qur'an [I]is[/I] up for interpretation, and Nawaz saying that the Qur'an is not the be-all and end-all of life doesn't mean he's not a Muslim. Likewise, the numerous Jews I know who choose not to restrict themselves to kosher food are still Jews if they pray and believe in G-d. His whole [I]point[/I], as far as I can tell, is that Islam needs to modernise, much like Christianity has been struggling to do for the past century or so.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51295327]I havent ever met those people, dunno what you are talking about, the Muslims I had met however were very sweet people
The only narrative I see being pushed is Islam is a religion of bloodshed and any Muslim who is peaceful is an exception or idiot[/QUOTE]
So do we judge the religion by its people or by its content?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51293916]Because you're deliberately being obtuse and you know, bringing up unrelated crap to try and defend your obvious sectarianism?
I'll readily criticise Islam and the parts I don't like about it.
I won't attack a Muslim just because they are a Muslim, which is what you are doing.[/QUOTE]
Isnt sectarianism also when you do it on the basis of religious beliefs?
i think its dumb though to consider this negative, religion are just a bunch of ideas concerning the world, and some bad ideas can be found worse then others, some are even objectively worse then others... for example suicide cults are objectively worse in integrating with society in a productive manner.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51295461]People[/QUOTE]
So you agree that Abu Bakr,a revered companion of Muhammad and the first Muslim Caliph of the Rashidun was the first major example of using Islam as a rallying call to fight the Byzantines and Persians?
Do you see why people have an issue with Islam being the religion of peace when one of it's most important figures used violence to spread the religion?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51294666]Nobody is saying there's no such thing as a regressive left. Labeling the entire political left, or even a majority of, as being regressive isn't really appropriate or accurate, however. The irony here is that making that implication would actually be pretty similar to unfairly labeling most moderates as "Anti-Muslim," as far is unfair generalizations go.[/QUOTE]
Sorry i didn't get a memo that the left now acknowledges the regressive lefts existence. Ive never seen the term being used on any national or even regional news though... so it surely is far more under-represented as the regressive right although i could make the claim and say its about equal in presentation to me... Thing is political candidates get away with being called just 'left' when what they say is regressive horse shit like moving away from free speech to stop trolls...
Because in real life and not the internet, regressive leftists aren't a huge problem while the current Republican candidate is a massive example of the regressive reactionary right?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51295244]This lovely fact that no one denies the existence of the regressive left is rather new actually.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't help that it's often used as a meaningless buzzword making it hard at times to take seriously
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51295244]This lovely fact that no one denies the existence of the regressive left is rather new actually.[/QUOTE]
the progression has been "those people don't exist" to "they're only some idiots on tumblr with no capacity for power" to "they're just a minority of the left". there's been a clear escalation in that sort lf ideology and just letting it fester is going to make it even more prevalent.
[editline]2nd November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51295495]Because in real life and not the internet, regressive leftists aren't a huge problem while the current Republican candidate is a massive example of the regressive reactionary right?[/QUOTE]
the right is just as guilty of it, they've just had the issue going on longer in their camp.
the right shows us what the left could become if bad ideologies are just left to their own devices instead of dealt with.
[editline]2nd November 2016[/editline]
reminder that the internet is a part of real life and the people who are on it are real people who have real opinions and a real capability to influence things if they put their mind to it. see: the entire alt-right movement.
don't just sweep it under the rug of "its just people on the internet", that is dangerous
I can't understand how people are thinking about the issues as black and white. Taking a stance either on the left or on the right, believing the promises of easy solutions to the problems a society faces.
People want solutions fast and the only way to do this leads to extreme measures. They can't think in long term. Just an example: Climate change. Now that it becomes more clear about the negative outcomes made by decisions in the past, now people want the problems to be tackled. But if this is even possible anymore, it would be very difficult and expensive. The sooner you solve an upcoming problem in the first place, the cheaper it is to solve. Just think about software development. You build up a good foundation and clean up all the bugs with a little bit of foresight what could be problematic later on, and suddenly you dont have to invest 10 times the resources later on trying to fix a fundemantal problem.
[QUOTE=Fayez;51293434]They're not qualified to speak about Islam academically because they have no academic credentials relating to Islam.
Yes there is. If you want your argument to be taken seriously you need to have the proper credentials to write about it. No one would pay attention to a Physics paper written by a Doctor of Philosophy, why should it be different for theological papers?[/QUOTE]
You don't necessarily need academic credentials in a particular field to notice bad ideas. That's like saying you need a degree in politics to disagree with national socialism.
Another issue, specifically regarding theologian studies, is that it is a largely useless soft science field, especially in the modern age, since it isn't based on the historicity of the scripture, but rather on baseless subjective interpretation, that rely on a belief in the divine.
I would, for example, find a scholar of religious studies to be far more trustworthy than a theologian, when discussing religion.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51295502]Yes I see why people in the 7th century might view Islam as a violent religion since the only Islamic entity in existence used it as an excuse to invade neighboring countries in an age of constant conflict and genocide[/QUOTE]
I don't think you quite understand. Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Uthman, and Ali are considered the "rightly guided caliphs" by Sunni Muslims (Basically all Muslims outside of Iran). Those leaders are supposed to be the best examples of how to follow Muhammad in existence. They are kind of like the apostles in the Bible. They were also all, without fail, holy warriors who conquered in the name of Islam and militarily crushed all who tried to disbelieve.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51296071]I don't think you quite understand. Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Uthman, and Ali are considered the "rightly guided caliphs" by Sunni Muslims (Basically all Muslims outside of Iran). Those leaders are supposed to be the best examples of how to follow Muhammad in existence. They are kind of like the apostles in the Bible. They were also all, without fail, holy warriors who conquered in the name of Islam and militarily crushed all who tried to disbelieve.[/QUOTE]
So long as you're going to compare them to the Bible - Saul got a divine commandment to literally wipe the Amalekites off the face of the Earth. And when he didn't, God got pissed and made David the new king and he went to war with Saul's son and killed him to take the throne, and then he conquered Jerusalem by force and builds literally the most holy site in Christianity, the First Temple. Oh, and yeah, Saul actually did basically exterminate an entire ethnicity, he just didn't kill the king. Oh, and Saul ran large-scale military campaigns against five other nations with little remorse for the civilians. Or, you know, in Ezekiel, when God literally commands people to go through Jerusalem and systematically execute every last person who doesn't "groan" at the "abominations" taking place in it. Everybody. Including children.
Let's try not to apply modern morality onto a period of time where bloodshed and violence was quite literally a norm for [I]every[/I] religion. Saul was the anointed king of Israel and he only lost it because he [i]didn't[/i] genocide an entire civilization. This is not exclusive to Islam - these characters are still discussed and taught to children in Western society [I]despite literally being genocidal warlords[/I]. And they're admired. And they acted with the direct command of God.
What's changed since then in Christian thought? [I]Interpretation.[/I] No reason to expect Islam is any different - most violence in the Middle East and the Muslim world before the ~1930s-40s was ethnic and nationalist in nature. The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse because the Bulgarians and the Serbs and the Albanians disagreed about religion - it collapsed because many ethnic groups had renewed nationalism and developed a national identity, as did much of the rest of the world leading up to WWI. The kind of religiously-motivated violence we see in the Middle East nowadays is not the norm for Islam for the centuries preceding the mid-1900s. Religion played a part, but it was related to politics.
I mean, shit, you had a literal secular socialist as the Prime Minister of Iran just over half a century ago. And he was allied with the communist party of Iran. And he tried to reduce the power of the religious monarch in order to strengthen democratic political power. And he fought for freedom of religion. And the US staged a coup on him, nice.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51296215]So long as you're going to compare them to the Bible - Saul got a divine commandment to literally wipe the Amalekites off the face of the Earth. And when he didn't, God got pissed and made David the new king and he went to war with Saul's son and killed him to take the throne, and then he conquered Jerusalem by force and builds literally the most holy site in Christianity, the First Temple. Oh, and yeah, Saul actually did basically exterminate an entire ethnicity, he just didn't kill the king. Oh, and Saul ran large-scale military campaigns against five other nations with little remorse for the civilians. Or, you know, in Ezekiel, when God literally commands people to go through Jerusalem and systematically execute every last person who doesn't "groan" at the "abominations" taking place in it. Everybody. Including children.
Let's try not to apply modern morality onto a period of time where bloodshed and violence was quite literally a norm for [I]every[/I] religion. Saul was the anointed king of Israel and he only lost it because he [i]didn't[/i] genocide an entire civilization. This is not exclusive to Islam - these characters are still discussed and taught to children in Western society [I]despite literally being genocidal warlords[/I]. And they're admired. And they acted with the direct command of God.
What's changed since then in Christian thought? [I]Interpretation.[/I] No reason to expect Islam is any different - most violence in the Middle East and the Muslim world before the ~1930s-40s was ethnic and nationalist in nature. The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse because the Bulgarians and the Serbs and the Albanians disagreed about religion - it collapsed because many ethnic groups had renewed nationalism and developed a national identity, as did much of the rest of the world leading up to WWI. The kind of religiously-motivated violence we see in the Middle East nowadays is not the norm for Islam for the centuries preceding the mid-1900s. Religion played a part, but it was related to politics.
I mean, shit, you had a literal secular socialist as the Prime Minister of Iran just over half a century ago. And he was allied with the communist party of Iran. And he tried to reduce the power of the religious monarch in order to strengthen democratic political power. And he fought for freedom of religion. And the US staged a coup on him, nice.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to criticize Christianity then why focus on the Old Testament which was made for the jews? The Old Testament was strictly an historical document while the New Testament served as the real foundation for Christianity.Besides thats not his point and mine either.
The point is that Islamic radicals can use Abu Bakr's conquest as inspiration to other Muslims to fight against infidels. The fact that Abu Bakr himself waged war to spread Islam already disproves that Islam is a religion of peace like most Muslims love to promote. Thats the problem of not coming to terms with the violent history of the religion.
[QUOTE=Tarver;51296237]If you're going to criticize Christianity then why focus on the Old Testament which was made for the jews? The Old Testament was strictly an historical document while the New Testament served as the real foundation for Christianity.Besides thats not his point and mine either.
The point is that Islamic radicals can use Abu Bakr's conquest as inspiration to other Muslims to fight against infidels. The fact that Abu Bakr himself waged war to spread Islam already disproves that Islam is a religion of peace like most Muslims love to promote. Thats the problem of not coming to terms with the violent history of the religion.[/QUOTE]
The new testament says, out of the horses mouth that the new rules dont replace the old, merely build on it.
The old testament is just as much Christianity as the new one is.
[QUOTE=Tarver;51296237]If you're going to criticize Christianity then why focus on the Old Testament which was made for the jews? The Old Testament was strictly an historical document while the New Testament served as the real foundation for Christianity.Besides thats not his point and mine either.
The point is that Islamic radicals can use Abu Bakr's conquest as inspiration to other Muslims to fight against infidels. The fact that Abu Bakr himself waged war to spread Islam already disproves that Islam is a religion of peace like most Muslims love to promote. Thats the problem of not coming to terms with the violent history of the religion.[/QUOTE]
So why isn't Judaism a violent religion, then? You're telling me I can't compare the historical actions of important figures of a religious belief with... the historical actions of important figures of a religious beliefs.
What's stopping a Jewish person from using Saul's genocide against the Amalekites as inspiration for ethnic cleansing? There's a problem if they aren't coming to terms with the violent history of the religion.
I understand that the religion has [I]very[/I] violent underpinnings. My point is that [I]so does Judaism and so does Christianity.[/I] The Zoroastrians of the Sasanian Empire that preceded the rise of Islam literally engaged in a widespread persecution campaign against the Manichees. The Roman Church did the same, with one emperor establishing a [I]policy[/I] of burning Manichees at the stake. Theodosius I issued a decree that all Manichean monks were to be executed. This was an organized Christian persecution campaign against a religious minority that involved literal massacres. This was during the [I]same time period[/I] that these horribly violent Muslim warlords were fighting in the Middle East and Persia. And this was the origin of the Catholic Church in Nicene Christianity, openly and happily massacring religious minorities.
My point is that [i]effectively every western religion has violent origins[/i]. Christians were massacring minorities while Muslims were doing the same thing. There's nothing in Islam stopping it from being peaceful - if the Catholic Church can make saints out of multiple people who genuinely went out and massacred entire villages, like St. Olga of Kiev, and when the religion only managed to thrive by beating out competing religions (like Manicheanism) with mass executions, I find it a little hard to believe that Islam is fundamentally different because they have a couple renowned warlords from 1600 years ago.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51296215]So long as you're going to compare them to the Bible - Saul got a divine commandment to literally wipe the Amalekites off the face of the Earth. And when he didn't, God got pissed and made David the new king and he went to war with Saul's son and killed him to take the throne, and then he conquered Jerusalem by force and builds literally the most holy site in Christianity, the First Temple. Oh, and yeah, Saul actually did basically exterminate an entire ethnicity, he just didn't kill the king. Oh, and Saul ran large-scale military campaigns against five other nations with little remorse for the civilians. Or, you know, in Ezekiel, when God literally commands people to go through Jerusalem and systematically execute every last person who doesn't "groan" at the "abominations" taking place in it. Everybody. Including children.
Let's try not to apply modern morality onto a period of time where bloodshed and violence was quite literally a norm for [I]every[/I] religion. Saul was the anointed king of Israel and he only lost it because he [i]didn't[/i] genocide an entire civilization. This is not exclusive to Islam - these characters are still discussed and taught to children in Western society [I]despite literally being genocidal warlords[/I]. And they're admired. And they acted with the direct command of God.
What's changed since then in Christian thought? [I]Interpretation.[/I] No reason to expect Islam is any different - most violence in the Middle East and the Muslim world before the ~1930s-40s was ethnic and nationalist in nature. The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse because the Bulgarians and the Serbs and the Albanians disagreed about religion - it collapsed because many ethnic groups had renewed nationalism and developed a national identity, as did much of the rest of the world leading up to WWI. The kind of religiously-motivated violence we see in the Middle East nowadays is not the norm for Islam for the centuries preceding the mid-1900s. Religion played a part, but it was related to politics.
I mean, shit, you had a literal secular socialist as the Prime Minister of Iran just over half a century ago. And he was allied with the communist party of Iran. And he tried to reduce the power of the religious monarch in order to strengthen democratic political power. And he fought for freedom of religion. And the US staged a coup on him, nice.[/QUOTE]
the difference here is that you're comparing stories from the bible to actual stories from history that actually happened.
[QUOTE=Quark:;51296364]the difference here is that you're comparing stories from the bible to actual stories from history that actually happened.[/QUOTE]
You're right, nobody ever built the First Temple in Jerusalem and there definitely was never an Israelite kingdom that conquered Jerusalem. Just made-up stories from a fictional book with no basis in reality.
Plenty of the stuff in the Old Testament is rooted in historical fact - the figures might not be exact, but there's definite evidence of the existence of a lot of stuff. Amalekites aren't specifically referenced in any other text, obviously, because it's the Hebrew name for a nomadic tribe near the Dead Sea, but the [I]idea[/I] of Amalekites as an enemy of Christians was all people needed to justify violence against them. Pope Urban II called Muslims "amalekites" to justify violence against them during the crusades. They used to be (incorrectly) identified as Armenians, which helped Christians and Jews turn a blind eye to the Armenian genocide when it occurred, as they were "sworn enemies" of Judaism and their persecution and slaughter was condoned already in the Bible.
It doesn't need to be a real story to influence people.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51293180]I don't know anyone in "the left" who doesn't think fundamentalist Islamism is despicable. The problem is that people not in "the left" generalize one specific semi-popular regional radical sect of Islam to all of Islam, which is dishonest. It's like saying all Christians believe that Jesus went to the US and made Mormonism or something - most actually don't.
Islam isn't a religion of hate and violence necessarily; some groups are. Islamists are. I've provided many examples of popular groups that are not at all similar and promote tolerance and democracy and human rights and denounce the authority of hadiths and promote individual interpretation. I do the same with Christianity - is it acceptable that evangelicals in Africa are promoting anti-LGBT campaigns of hate and violence? No. Are the actions and beliefs of those evangelicals generalizable to the entire religion? No.
I'm not treating it with kid gloves, I'm treating it with academic rigor - something "the left" has a tendency to value. Generalizing Wahhabist beliefs to all of Islam is academically ignorant, just like generalizing Zen Buddhism to all Buddhism when you have very violent Buddhist sects killing people. Neither are religions of peace or religions of violence exclusively.[/QUOTE]
I agree but it is in danger of becoming violent over being peaceful.
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51297064]I agree but it is in danger of becoming violent over being peaceful.[/QUOTE]
A government rooted in religious authority that celebrates the murder and death of their own citizens cannot ever stabilize into a true organized state, so it'll eventually fizzle out once more stable and constructive authorities that also have a convincing claim to religious authority are able to take root without getting fucked to shit. I'm convinced that ISIS in particular is in the process of triggering a huge backlash within the global Muslim community against all forms of fundamentalist Islam. It's already happening - the main reason they're able to hold territory is because they have the threat of violence. They can't hold on to mainstream support when they're murdering everybody who disagrees or refuses to comply - that's not how you develop a state. Most Muslims in the Middle East are fucking terrified of ISIS and the violence that follows them - hence why they're fleeing en masse to Europe and elsewhere.
The refugee crisis will inevitably have the long-term effect of saturating global Islam into Western society and extinguishing the fundamentalist Islamist movement. The fearmongering around it is ridiculous - all groups integrate over time, and millions and millions of Muslim refugees integrating into Western society and gaining access to strong education and stable work and general safety will trigger reconciliation between Islam and Western thought and reinvigorate Islamic Modernism.
I'm convinced Islam is in a general state of religious crisis due to the undue influence of extremists on public perception, and I'm optimistic that the negative response to ISIS will continue to build and foster a progressive movement that radically shifts generally-accepted ideas of Islam around the globe. Moderate Muslims are trying hard as fuck to prevent their religion from getting soured by minority extremism, and if they have to reinterpret certain ideas or eliminate hadiths or make some other drastic theological or interpretive change in order to do that, they will.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51295244]This lovely fact that no one denies the existence of the regressive left is rather new actually.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem is the rapid devaluation of the neologism "regressive leftist". It was originally created just for moments like these, when leftists and nominal progressives would give a pass to fundamentalist Islam and it's backwards, regressive, oppressive views because in the concept of privilege, Muslims cannot be the oppressor in western society. Combined with good old cultural relativism of course. In this context, a Regressive (as opposed to a Progressive) is an easy way to describe a leftist who generally overemphasizes things like womens rights but goes the extra mile to defend Muslims in particular.
The problem is, just like how "SJW" and "PC" were bandied around, calling people on the left "regressives" just became common place pejorative used to label and smear great swathes of people on the left side of the ideological curve who weren't even exhibiting regressive beliefs. Hence people started denying the existence of the "regressive left" in the same way that someone would deny the existence of a mountain because the only thing they see is a hill.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51298080]Part of the problem is the rapid devaluation of the neologism "regressive leftist". It was originally created just for moments like these, when leftists and nominal progressives would give a pass to fundamentalist Islam and it's backwards, regressive, oppressive views because in the concept of privilege, Muslims cannot be the oppressor in western society. Combined with good old cultural relativism of course. In this context, a Regressive (as opposed to a Progressive) is an easy way to describe a leftist who generally overemphasizes things like womens rights but goes the extra mile to defend Muslims in particular.
The problem is, just like how "SJW" and "PC" were bandied around, calling people on the left "regressives" just became common place pejorative used to label and smear great swathes of people on the left side of the ideological curve who weren't even exhibiting regressive beliefs. Hence people started denying the existence of the "regressive left" in the same way that someone would deny the existence of a mountain because the only thing they see is a hill.[/QUOTE]Devaluation can be seen in a lot of terms used by large bodies to describe people who are do not adhere strictly to their views. The alt-right very much exists, but that term is getting lobbed around at literally everyone. Look how often certain users here will accuse other users of being trump supporters or part of the alt right for not liking Clinton. Its hardly a phenomenon that is unique to terms like "Regressive Left", "SJW" (never have liked this term though), or whatever.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51295327]The only narrative I see being pushed is Islam is a religion of bloodshed and any Muslim who is peaceful is an exception or idiot[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the "they're only peaceful because of taqiya" excuse.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51296215]So long as you're going to compare them to the Bible - Saul got a divine commandment to literally wipe the Amalekites off the face of the Earth. And when he didn't, God got pissed and made David the new king and he went to war with Saul's son and killed him to take the throne, and then he conquered Jerusalem by force and builds literally the most holy site in Christianity, the First Temple. Oh, and yeah, Saul actually did basically exterminate an entire ethnicity, he just didn't kill the king. Oh, and Saul ran large-scale military campaigns against five other nations with little remorse for the civilians. Or, you know, in Ezekiel, when God literally commands people to go through Jerusalem and systematically execute every last person who doesn't "groan" at the "abominations" taking place in it. Everybody. Including children.
Let's try not to apply modern morality onto a period of time where bloodshed and violence was quite literally a norm for [I]every[/I] religion. Saul was the anointed king of Israel and he only lost it because he [I]didn't[/I] genocide an entire civilization. This is not exclusive to Islam - these characters are still discussed and taught to children in Western society [I]despite literally being genocidal warlords[/I]. And they're admired. And they acted with the direct command of God.
What's changed since then in Christian thought? [I]Interpretation.[/I] No reason to expect Islam is any different - most violence in the Middle East and the Muslim world before the ~1930s-40s was ethnic and nationalist in nature. The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse because the Bulgarians and the Serbs and the Albanians disagreed about religion - it collapsed because many ethnic groups had renewed nationalism and developed a national identity, as did much of the rest of the world leading up to WWI. The kind of religiously-motivated violence we see in the Middle East nowadays is not the norm for Islam for the centuries preceding the mid-1900s. Religion played a part, but it was related to politics.
I mean, shit, you had a literal secular socialist as the Prime Minister of Iran just over half a century ago. And he was allied with the communist party of Iran. And he tried to reduce the power of the religious monarch in order to strengthen democratic political power. And he fought for freedom of religion. And the US staged a coup on him, nice.[/QUOTE]
There are a few problems with your comparison:
1) It's a strawman. I didn't say, "Hey, here are some guys in Islamic stories that did bad stuff, therefore Islamic people will follow their lead." I specifically pointed to Sunni theology that that holds those people as "rightly guided caliphs" who best knew how to follow Muhammad. They are, like I said, semi-equivalent to the apostles in Christianity. These are the most trustworthy people in the history of Islam when it comes to accurately interpreting and knowing the teachings of Muhammad.
Neither Christians or Jews hold the people from the OT in that light. To compare them directly is to totally ignore the theology of each religion. I'm talking about tradition theology, not even modern theology.
2) Interpretation is most definitely not what changed. Christians, from the very beginning, were peace loving. The issues with violence came later when politics melded with religion in a way that the NT never taught it should. This is diametrically opposed to Islam where politics and religion are inextricably linked.
This thread is a great reference of racist posters to add to your ignore list
[QUOTE=June;51300972]This thread is a great reference of racist posters to add to your ignore list[/QUOTE]
Racism is also a term that gets thrown around so much it loses its true meaning.
Muslims or Christians are not a race. Some of the most radical muslims are those who converted to Islam in the western society. One example would be Pierre Vogel. And then you have all these people willingly joining ISIS to fight their holy war.
But if you want to define race as something like religion, then go ahead.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51300997]Racism is also a term that gets thrown around so much it loses its true meaning.
Muslims or Christians are not a race. Some of the most radical muslims are those who converted to Islam in the western society. One example would be Pierre Vogel. And then you have all these people willingly joining ISIS to fight their holy war.
But if you want to define race as something like religion, then go ahead.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you skipped over the whole meaning of my post and now you're arguing with me over semantics. gold star
[QUOTE=June;51301044]Congratulations, you skipped over the whole meaning of my post and now you're arguing with me over semantics. gold star[/QUOTE]
Without a common ground for communication there would be a lot of unnecessary arguments which just waste time. Words have a definition not without reason.
See:
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51298105]Devaluation can be seen in a lot of terms used by large bodies to describe people who are do not adhere strictly to their views. The alt-right very much exists, but that term is getting lobbed around at literally everyone. Look how often certain users here will accuse other users of being trump supporters or part of the alt right for not liking Clinton. Its hardly a phenomenon that is unique to terms like "Regressive Left", "SJW" (never have liked this term though), or whatever.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51295475]Sorry i didn't get a memo that the left now acknowledges the regressive lefts existence. Ive never seen the term being used on any national or even regional news though... so it surely is far more under-represented as the regressive right although i could make the claim and say its about equal in presentation to me... Thing is political candidates get away with being called just 'left' when what they say is regressive horse shit like moving away from free speech to stop trolls...[/QUOTE]
Just because most people aren't using your reactionary buzzwords doesn't mean we don't recognize that there are a few fools in our midst.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51300997]Racism is also a term that gets thrown around so much it loses its true meaning.
Muslims or Christians are not a race. Some of the most radical muslims are those who converted to Islam in the western society. One example would be Pierre Vogel. And then you have all these people willingly joining ISIS to fight their holy war.
But if you want to define race as something like religion, then go ahead.[/QUOTE]
Let me share a little story with you that happened exactly five days ago. My muslim friend went to Hong Kong with her family. She and her mom wore hijabs. The moment they arrived there they were subjected to shitty treatment. People looked at them weird, and their hotel booking was cancelled the moment they arrived there without explanation, leaving them without a place to stay for the night, and they were treated rudely by a lot of people, and were generally avoided by the staff.
My friend and her mom then decided to follow my other muslim friend's advice, which is "When you go to other countries, don't wear a hijab. People will judge you."
After doing that(my friend looks really different without a hijab), people suddenly treated her differently. They suddenly treated her more assertively and stuff and actually started talking to her.
And this other story happened years ago, but my family had to leave california after 9/11 because everybody started treating muslims like shit and some of them were actually hunted down. People underhandedly slung insults at my dad just because he was a muslim. He had to resign from his job as he decided to temporarily leave the place while things cooled off.
If what happened there isn't racism then I don't know what it is. Islam might not be a race but racists don't even care enough to tell the difference between a pakistani, an arab, an iranian person, or a filipino person. The common denominator for them is the fact that they're muslims and that's how people discriminate against them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.