Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Umbran said:

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 personal discussions.

Click to expand...

i did more than that, I specified why I thought they weren't indicative, and even listed ways to make them become indicative if you had more of them. It's a touch disingenuous to compare a multi-post discussion of the arguments to a fast, paragraph long dismissal.

Further, I addressed your statement in good faith, here, and showed why I felt that your dismissal wasn't valid -- specifically I addressed where I see such argument (the media), showing that they weren't isolated or limited to my personal sphere. So my items are also public, national stage, and not undocumented personal discussions.

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You're just arguing that I am wrong because there are some people that are irrational in their fear. Sure, I agree, there are irrational people that have an irrational fear of Islam, in which case Islamophobia is appropriate. Granted and agreed.

However, I was arguing how it was used here, and in that case, my arguments are valid. In the general, most people concerned with Islam have rational fears. They may fear that people who worship Islam are terrorists. This is incorrect, but not an irrational fear. If you believe that people who worship Islam are terrorist, or harbor terrorist sympathies, then it's very, very rational to fear them. It's also narrowminded, uneducated, and bigoted, but not irrational. If you criticize Islam for their treatment of women, that's also rational -- there's a large body of confirmed evidence that suggests that in many Islam countries women are oppressed. That it's also true that there are Islamic countries where they aren't oppressed doesn't mean that the person only exposed to the former evidence is making an irrational choice to be critical of Islam.

You don't have to agree with the reasons, you don't even have to think they're true, but if there is a held belief, and you are critical of something because of that held belief, then you are being rational. The premise might not be rational, but he logical chain built on that premise can be. Logic is fun that way.

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

Click to expand...

What about the assertion that I was countering -- that people have an irrational fear of Islam because they don't want Sharia law? Shouldn't that have to have some evidence before my refutation is held to an evidentiary standard? I'm all for standards, so long as they're applied evenly.

Further, I've supported all of my arguments with rationals and descriptions of why I think the way I do. You may disagree, but you can't claim I haven't backed up my arguments.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm noticing that.

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).

Click to expand...

Okay, so you can't trust what a person tells you they're thinking, you must use, um, some other technique to glean what they really think because people can't be trusted to even know what it is they're really thinking.

Good luck with that. I prefer to take what people say at face value and only question it if their actions are not in line with their stated beliefs. I don't assume people aren't telling me the truth without evidence to the contrary, cognitive bias notwithstanding.

But I'm now curious. What's your opinion of what my actual reasons for making my arguments here are? You've all but implied I'm suffering from cognitive bias, so I'm curious as to what you think my bias is.

Sadras said:

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...

Hmm... How about you bring up the issue of gay rights in Anglican Uganda? And I'll raise the same issue in Muslim Albania. We'll see who fares better.
It's not simply a function of religion, per se. You see religious organizations against gay rights all over the place. Culture, social and political, makes a huge difference. You'd be a lot safer bringing issues like this up in Turkey than in Afghanistan because the culture is very different. You'd also be in a lot more danger bringing up gay rights in Russia than in Ireland despite the government of Ireland's traditionally much closer relationship to a religion than Russia's.

goldomark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agree, but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.

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.

Click to expand...

Why is it actual power for Christians but perceived power for Muslims? Are you speaking about Islamic power within the States and Canada or in general.

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

Click to expand...

An over generalisation? For what, calling Islamists out for not apologising for past atrocities done in the name of religion? We are just going to have to disagree on this. I'm sorry but I like to hold every religion to the same level of accountability and not just singularly bash Christianity like it is the only wicked stepchild of Organised Religion.

In the youtube clip with Barack Obama making fun out of three comments coming out the bible - TWO of those came out of the TORAH. But does he even mention it? No, Christianity solely gets the blame. The rest of the world does not see this supposed Christian USA you democrats like to bash, not at all, definitely not in its media and film. If anything they ridicule Christianity any chance they get.
Being Islamophobic is seen as very non-PC, making fun of Judaism gets your labelled Anti-Semitic meanwhile Christian bashing has become the norm.

billd91 said:

It's not simply a function of religion, per se. You see religious organizations against gay rights all over the place. Culture, social and political, makes a huge difference.

Click to expand...

100% Agreed.

Ovinomancer said:

ZING!

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.

Click to expand...

Well you can certainly argue that using "phobia" is inaccurate as a technical term, but I would argue that from a sociological/colloquial standpoint it's a reasonable use. Taking the technical standpoint isn't so much nuance, as it is simply dismissing a statement over a philological point of language. We speak how we speak and we write how we write. You could tear Twain apart over his use of terms, but he wrote how people spoke.

I'm talking about people reacting to an entire range of cultural/religious groups based on the actions of a few. That is no less irrational than people who are in constant fear of their children being abducted or abused by strangers, when friends and relatives are far more commonly the abusers. It's no less irrational than people who think that you can curb illegal actions, by limiting the actions of the law abiding (here I speak specifically to issues like the use of illegal firearms in the commission of crime, or stopping habitual impaired drivers who operate vehicles while at multiples of the allowable BAC). Any time someone reacts in a way that is out of scale with what caused the reaction it is, by definition, irrational.

Sadras said:

Agree, but I don't believe Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Shintuism or Buddhism speak about apostacy in the same manner that Islam does.

Click to expand...

Again with the broad generalization... Next thing you'll tell me is that Buddhists couldn't arm a fly.

Why is it actual power for Christians but perceived power for Muslims?

Click to expand...

Islamophobes exagerate the actual political and mediatic power Muslims have in Western countries in general*. They perceive Muslims as far more influencial than they are.

Of course, a country like Albania as a majority of Muslims in it and is a Western country, so it would be logical that Muslims have more power there. By Western countries in general I mean non-Muslim ones.

An over generalisation?

Click to expand...

Yes.

For what, calling Islamists out for not apologising for past atrocities done in the name of religion?

Click to expand...

For lumping radical Muslims with non radical ones.

In the youtube clip with Barack Obama making fun out of three comments coming out the bible

Click to expand...

Huh?

The rest of the world does not see this supposed Christian USA you democrats like to bash, not at all, definitely not in its media and film.

Click to expand...

What?

If anything they ridicule Christianity any chance they get.

Click to expand...

Who is they?

Being Islamophobic is seen as very non-PC, making fun of Judaism gets your labelled Anti-Semitic meanwhile Christian bashing has become the norm.

Click to expand...

Not going to argue against the myth that Christianity is under assault, it would be obviously pointless here, but I'll do say that there is a difference between pushing up and pushing down when critiquing groups. In federations like the US or Canada, Christians are the majority. Critiquing them is pushing up. Up because they are on top of the social order. Critiquing them often means critiquing their power and/or abuse of power. Pushing down, means pushing on minorities who are often not in power and/or discriminated upon, so it can adds to their burden.

It is also easier to critic groups we are part of. In part because we are familiar with that group, but also because we can be directly affected by some belief of our group since it is in power. Critiquing a minority who's culture we aren't familiar with might lead to critiquing stuff that doesn't exist or isn't wide spread, but result in real stigma to the minority.

Ryujin said:

Well you can certainly argue that using "phobia" is inaccurate as a technical term, but I would argue that from a sociological/colloquial standpoint it's a reasonable use. Taking the technical standpoint isn't so much nuance, as it is simply dismissing a statement over a philological point of language. We speak how we speak and we write how we write. You could tear Twain apart over his use of terms, but he wrote how people spoke.

I'm talking about people reacting to an entire range of cultural/religious groups based on the actions of a few. That is no less irrational than people who are in constant fear of their children being abducted or abused by strangers, when friends and relatives are far more commonly the abusers. It's no less irrational than people who think that you can curb illegal actions, by limiting the actions of the law abiding (here I speak specifically to issues like the use of illegal firearms in the commission of crime, or stopping habitual impaired drivers who operate vehicles while at multiples of the allowable BAC). Any time someone reacts in a way that is out of scale with what caused the reaction it is, by definition, irrational.

Click to expand...

No disagreement on word usage, but Islamophobia isn't a convenient shorthand for the issues people my have with Islam, it's used as a pejorative to shut down conversation via labeling people as unpleasant. So, in that case, attacking the use of the word as both an unfair pejorative absent useful descriptive content and on technical issues is valid. The former hasn't been much under discussion here because people have seemed to want to focus on the latter argument, but that doesn't mean that the former argument isn't also valid.

Ovinomancer said:

No disagreement on word usage, but Islamophobia isn't a convenient shorthand for the issues people my have with Islam, it's used as a pejorative to shut down conversation via labeling people as unpleasant. So, in that case, attacking the use of the word as both an unfair pejorative absent useful descriptive content and on technical issues is valid. The former hasn't been much under discussion here because people have seemed to want to focus on the latter argument, but that doesn't mean that the former argument isn't also valid.

Click to expand...

And I would disagree with that assessment completely. If using the expression Islamophobia applies a label, then it's to people who have an irrational reaction to all followers of Islam as if they're terrorists, as 'phobic', ie. irrational in their fear and labelling of another group. You can disagree with something without being 'phobic' of it, however, when your reactions are out of scale or apply a label to an entire group because of the actions of a relatively small part of that group, you are then being irrational, bigoted, or a little of column A and a little of column B. I would call such people unpleasant and, quite likely, worthy of being 'shut down.' Logical debate is one thing, but knee jerk reactions to one and a half BILLION people based on a few of their number is quite another.

Ryujin said:

And I would disagree with that assessment completely. If using the expression Islamophobia applies a label, then it's to people who have an irrational reaction to all followers of Islam as if they're terrorists, as 'phobic', ie. irrational in their fear and labelling of another group. You can disagree with something without being 'phobic' of it, however, when your reactions are out of scale or apply a label to an entire group because of the actions of a relatively small part of that group, you are then being irrational, bigoted, or a little of column A and a little of column B. I would call such people unpleasant and, quite likely, worthy of being 'shut down.' Logical debate is one thing, but knee jerk reactions to one and a half BILLION people based on a few of their number is quite another.

Click to expand...

We've crossed word, here. I'm not defending anyone doing anything in regards to Islam. I'm focused on the use of Islamophobia as a pejorative word that is used to shut down any discussion regarding issues tied to Muslims. It is being used that way, it was used that way in this thread, and that's my focus.

Discussions of what may or may not be of issue with Islam, the relative value of different judgments or beliefs associated with those issues or non-issues, it outside the scope of my complaint. I can discuss those with you, and it sounds like we're in pretty close agreement already, but it's a separate issue from the use of Islamophobia as an anti-intellectual discussion tactic.

Ovinomancer said:

We've crossed word, here. I'm not defending anyone doing anything in regards to Islam. I'm focused on the use of Islamophobia as a pejorative word that is used to shut down any discussion regarding issues tied to Muslims. It is being used that way, it was used that way in this thread, and that's my focus.

Discussions of what may or may not be of issue with Islam, the relative value of different judgments or beliefs associated with those issues or non-issues, it outside the scope of my complaint. I can discuss those with you, and it sounds like we're in pretty close agreement already, but it's a separate issue from the use of Islamophobia as an anti-intellectual discussion tactic.

Click to expand...

And here is precisely where we seem to differ. You appear to be casting a rather wide net, in the belief that people use the term "Islamophobia" as an anti intellectual means of shutting down any criticism of Islam as a whole. My position is that it's a method of shutting down anti intellectual sentiment that all who profess to follow Islam must, therefore, be terrorists. The latter appears to be the way that the lines are being drawn, politically, in my experience and observation.