Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Ovinomancer said:

Also, the use of Islamophobia is a pejorative that's fatuous. Phobias are irrational fears, but people I see being critical of Islam all seem to have rational reasons for doing so.

Click to expand...

Well, we don't know who *you* see being critical of Islam. We cannot quiz them, or otherwise dig into their positions. Moreover, your personal acquaintances are unlikely to be a representative sample. Which makes this anecdote, not data.

But, let us be frank - it isn't like Christianity and the dogmas of its various branches are somehow perfect, beyond reproach. Are the folks "criticizing" Islam giving a similar critical eye to Christianity? Probably not. Broadly, the ones critical of Islam often (usually?) claim to be pretty devout Christians themselves, very happy with the tenets and practices of their religion. That's an indication of cognitive bias, rather than rationality. Christianity, even if you don't agree with it, is the known and familiar to those in the Americas and Europe. Most are not actually terribly well acquainted with Islam, and people fear what they do not understand.

Umbran said:

Well, we don't know who *you* see being critical of Islam. We cannot quiz them, or otherwise dig into their positions. Moreover, your personal acquaintances are unlikely to be a representative sample. Which makes this anecdote, not data.

Click to expand...

Nicely done, very rhetorical, but completely beside the point. You can't just wave the anecdote wand and disappear the argument. You're implying that the reverse is true (otherwise, I fail to discern the intent of your rebuttal -- I may just be slow, though) but you haven't done any work to show that it is. When I say 'criticism I see' I'm speaking of what's in the media, not my personal acquaintances. There's always a reason for distrust of Muslims given, and while I might disagree with that reason, or that reason may be entirely false, having a reason moves you into the realm of the rational and out of the realm of the irrational. It might mean you're a jerk, a bigot, uneducated, stupid, mean, wrong, or any number of other pejoratives, but having a reason means you're not in the grip of an irrational fear.

Islamophobic is a pejorative meant to shut down discussion under the guise of accusing someone of being irrational. Why are you choosing to defend it's use?

But, let us be frank - it isn't like Christianity and the dogmas of its various branches are somehow perfect, beyond reproach. Are the folks "criticizing" Islam giving a similar critical eye to Christianity? Probably not. Broadly, the ones critical of Islam often (usually?) claim to be pretty devout Christians themselves, very happy with the tenets and practices of their religion. That's an indication of cognitive bias, rather than rationality. Christianity, even if you don't agree with it, is the known and familiar to those in the Americas and Europe. Most are not actually terribly well acquainted with Islam, and people fear what they do not understand.

Click to expand...

I think that someone giving a critical eye to mainstream Christianity vs mainstream Islam with an eye towards modern, liberal sensibilities wouldn't find Christianity above reproach, but would find it far more friendly than Islam. But I don't understand why this needs to be a contest of religions. There's nothing in Christianity that affect Islam, and vice versa, at least that I can see.

I've read large parts of the Koran. Islam has many lovely bits. But it has very large blocks that are generally incompatible with modern, liberal ideologies (I'm using liberal in the classic sense, here, as opposed to how it's used in US politics). The injunctions against apostates and blasphemy alone are strongly at odds. These and the treatment of women under Sharia law are the most often cited reasons for dislike, distrust, or fear of Muslims. That's not irrational, even if you disagree with it (which is perfectly valid).

To sum up, one doesn't need to be perfectly even handed and fair in the critique of all like things to have a valid reason to critique one thing. Not critiquing other things doesn't reduce the validity of the singular critique. It might make someone a hypocrite, but it doesn't alter the validity of their point (except that we generally don't like hypocrites).

For the record, I'm agnostic. I don't have a dog in the fight as far as a driving need to defend or devalue any particular religion.

IMO Islam is all ok when you're dealing with minorities...because the lot of us live in 'Christian Democratic' countries and we feel pretty safe. I would hazard a guess that if your neighbourhood gradually became Islamic you wouldn't feel so comfortable, for whatever reason. This is not about being PC or non-PC, this is basic human nature. You can argue I'm being reflective about my own fears - sure I wont contest, it doesn't bother me. What if the country you started to shift and a growing Muslim population started dominating mainstream media, politics...etc how would you feel then, while they begin pushing their religious agendas through...

You see, the same problems agnostics and free-thinking liberal have and pushback against Christianity, would be the same and worse with Islam. I only say worse because the Islamic Religion is only 1200-1400 years into its history and we all know how Christianity was back then.

So yes, Islamophobia appears irrational now because we are dealing with minorities, but name me a Christian group that feels they have equal opportunities within an Islamic world. Just so you are aware my father was born in Egypt and was around when Nasser started making it difficult for the Europeans to remain there, so yes I freely admit I have bias, but history regarding the Copts, Armenians, Zoroastrian, Hindus is on my side. And the fact that much of Christianity has admitted to its mistakes with the Crusades, the Americas, Africa and the like - yet the Muslim world has not come clean about their own atrocities speaks volumes. I find Islamophobia on that level justified.

Of course I completely disagree with the demonization of the religion for political and capital gain and for the pushing of atrocious policies like the West has recently done. That only strengthens the conviction of the religious and leads to blowback which begins a vicious cycle of hate and violence.

Sadras said:

What if the country you started to shift and a growing Muslim population started dominating mainstream media, politics...etc how would you feel then, while they begin pushing their religious agendas through...

Click to expand...

Fearing what you discribed is islamophobia by definition. No Western country is facing that scenario. It isn't a rational fear. Yet it is the fear behind many critics of Islam in the Western world.

You see, the same problems agnostics and free-thinking liberal have and pushback against Christianity, would be the same and worse with Islam.

Click to expand...

The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context.

yet the Muslim world has not come clean about their own atrocities speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

I didn't know Muslims were that homogenous.

goldomark said:

Fearing what you discribed is islamophobia by definition. No Western country is facing that scenario. It isn't a rational fear. Yet it is the fear behind many critics of Islam in the Western world.

Click to expand...

LOL. True USA and Canada are far from the mess they caused in the middle-east and with the Arab Spring. Europe is bearing all the brunt. I wonder if their fear is deemed rational or don't you consider Europe as Western?

The difference is that in some Western countries Christians actually have power and influence over politics and the media, and are pushing their agenda. The US is the perfect example. Just look at the influence of Christians in the same sex unions or abortion debate. It isn't irrational to fear Christian influence in that context.

Click to expand...

Despite all USA's imperfections, dialogue on abortion and same sex unions is still possible, try raising the same issue in a Muslim country in the political arena.

I didn't know Muslims were that homogenous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?

Sadras said:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?

Click to expand...

No, he's mocking you using an argument I made against him. Or, he's mocking me for not jumping on you for making a similar argument. Probably both.

Sadras said:

LOL. True USA and Canada are far from the mess they caused in the middle-east and with the Arab Spring. Europe is bearing all the brunt. I wonder if their fear is deemed rational or don't you consider Europe as Western?

Click to expand...

You think the tide of refugees is problematic for Europe because it is mostly composed Muslims? If that is the case, I'd say that is an irrational fear of Islam right there. The refugee crisis would still be problematic if it was composed of Buddhists or Hindus.

Despite all USA's imperfections, dialogue on abortion and same sex unions is still possible, try raising the same issue in a Muslim country in the political arena.

Click to expand...

That is irrelevant to the actual power that Christians have in some Western countries, as opposed to the perceived power Muslims have and the fear that comes with that perception.

And saying there are no differences between Muslim countries is inaccurate and only fosther islamophobia.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, are you implying Christianity has not apologised for its atrocities done in the name of the religion?

Click to expand...

I'm saying you're making an over generalization, painting Muslims as a monolithic block when they aren't.

Ovinomancer said:

Islamophobic is a pejorative meant to shut down discussion under the guise of accusing someone of being irrational.

Click to expand...

When used correctly, it should. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or, dare I say it, the Republican party

When someone rails on about Islam which branch of the religion are they talking about? It is Shi'ah? Sunni? Do we break it down further and look at Wahhabi, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Druze.......? A blanket statement in condemnation of Islam is indicative of Islamophobia. I don't hear people decrying general Christianity because of the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army, but I do hear people using the blanket term Islam on a daily basis.

Wouldn't you say that treating a dozen disparate groups as one monolithic organization is rather irrational?

Ovinomancer said:

Nicely done, very rhetorical, but completely beside the point. You can't just wave the anecdote wand and disappear the argument.

Click to expand...

Well, that's pretty much what happened when you dismissed some of my points as "isolated incidents". I listed a small number of things, and you dismissed them as not indicative of a pattern. I'm calling the same here. At least my items were from the public, national stage, not undocumented discussions.

You're implying that the reverse is true (otherwise, I fail to discern the intent of your rebuttal -- I may just be slow, though)

Click to expand...

No - stating that insufficient evidence has been given is not an implication that the opposite is true. It merely says the question is still open.

I'm not usually a fan of absolute assertions. I don't think *all* folks criticizing Islam are doing so because they are phobic. However, "not all X!" (Not all men! Not all Republicans! Not all gun owners! Not all Democrats! Not all Christians!) is known to be an informal logical fallacy - a bit of rhetorical judo that attempts to redirect discussion of a problem to the innocence of some subset of the accused (and all too often to how that subset is unfortunately put upon by being accused). I'm saying you have not demonstrated enough folks aren't phobic hat we can safely ignore the phenomenon.

you haven't done any work to show that it is.

Click to expand...

I don't need to. You made an implied assertion. Burden of proof is on you to give support.

There's always a reason for distrust of Muslims given

Click to expand...

It is a well-known bit of human psychology that a great many of our opinions and decisions are made on an emotional basis, and the reason given is a rationalization after the fact. And, the speaker usually *believes* the rationalization is the logical reason - that's an unfortunate artifact of how the human mind works. But, when you probe, you find that the speaker will generally resist even after the rational point has been shown to not apply.

Thus, broadly, we cannot automatically trust stated reasons. We need to probe deeper in order to trust that the issue is not one of a more basic emotional response (like fear).

Ryujin said:

When used correctly, it should. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or, dare I say it, the Republican party

Click to expand...

ZING!

When someone rails on about Islam which branch of the religion are they talking about? It is Shi'ah? Sunni? Do we break it down further and look at Wahhabi, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Druze.......? A blanket statement in condemnation of Islam is indicative of Islamophobia. I don't hear people decrying general Christianity because of the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army, but I do hear people using the blanket term Islam on a daily basis.

Wouldn't you say that treating a dozen disparate groups as one monolithic organization is rather irrational?

Click to expand...

No, it's not something I approve of, but it's not irrational. If it were, then we'd all be in trouble as we deal in generalities all day long. I don't like to use generalities in arguments, as they're usually about specific things and you introduce slop when doing so, but to consider the use of a generality as irrational strains the use of the word.

Also, to be fair, most of the sectarian differences in Islam are as obtuse as most of the sectarian difference in Protestant Christianity -- they hinge more on small difference in observation or belief than in core tenets of the faith. There are exceptions, of course, but most of the reasons I hear used to be critical of Islam are pretty broadly held across the factions -- Sharia law, subservience of women, apostate treatment, etc. I don't necessarily agree with those reasons -- often I find them guilty of overbroad or hasty generalizations -- that that doesn't make them irrational. It just makes them weak arguments.

I you have noticed that I tend to deal in nuance, especially in separating out lines of argument, and that I will argue for positions I don't hold if I think the argument against that position is weak. In this case, I'm arguing about the misuse of a medical phrase, phobia, as applied as a rhetorical device. It's incorrectly applied, and used primarily to avoid confronting the specifics of an argument. Those specifics may well be wrong or detestable, but they exist, and just calling holders of the irrational to avoid leaving a safe space and confront different, challenging, and potentially offensive opinions is, in my opinion, a large part of what is wrong with political and social discourse today. As a society, we're drifting into yelling at each other rather than listening.