Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

[Portia]

I'd like to offer an alternative perspective.

Imagine that on 42nd Street, armed gunmen shoot down and murder actors, producers, directors, and a policeman who happens to be Mormon, in response to the "Book of Mormon musical."

How could anyone in their right mind say that such a murder had nothing to do with religion?? That's craziness to me.

Fortunately, despite being behind Zion Curtains in bars and denying marriage equality to gay people (ironic, considering their own "non-traditional" marriage doctrines), neither Mormon doctrine nor culture involves jihad. Anyone who has seen or listened to the musical, or tons of other pop culture references, knows that Mormons don't come out in a great light, but they don't go on murder rampages.

If you're going to live in a civil society, that involves not using terrorism.If a religious group seems to sponsor outbreaks of violence at every perceived slight, it's a medieval institution that needs pretty serious reform.

You know what's truly disgusting? The thousands of innocent people who have been murdered in the name of and at the hand of religious zealots in this century.

Of course a witch-hunt or racism is uncalled for. But freedom of speech is more important than the freedom to kill people because of your backwards beliefs.




http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/80603/

[Marduk]

Comparing the vastness and diversity of Islam to one sect of one sect of Christianity is incredibly reductionist.

There's a ton of other issues with your comment, but we can start there.

[Digit]

I wonder how many Muslims as a raw number and as a percentage of all Muslims are in a place where they can and do get killed if they leave the religion. An extremely small and statistically insignificant number/fraction? I'll have to look at this.

Did you hear about Raif Badawi's 1,000 lashes sentence for writing a blog questioning the central role of religion in Saudi Arabia?

[yayfulness]

I stand by my statement. Wahabbism is the Westboro Baptist Church of Islam, except they kill people instead of picketing. Do the attacks have anything to do with Islam? Of course they do, in the same sense that saying random people died because God hates gays has something to do with Christianity. But the truth, given in an improper context, takes on the form and function of a lie, and that is exactly what is happening with the tweet and pervasive attitude in question.

[Portia]

I don't view Mormons as a "sect" of broader Christianity. And I don't think the comparison with the musical is at all unproductive. Parker & Stone created a work of comedy that is very irreverent, at times rude, and certainly doesn't treat, say, Joseph Smith as a prophet, but as a fallible human. I don't think that that (a) impinges on anyone's freedom to practice religion or association (b) would excuse even fringe nut jobs, like the Warren Jeff's fellow, associated with the Mormon movement should they retaliate.

In the USA, we lack the tradition of laïcité - the strict separation of Church and State, secularism basically - that has a 200-year history in France. Look, I'll be the first to admit that many French people are racist, and lump anyone with a Middle Eastern-sounding name into a French word that basically translates as "Ay-rabs." It's ridiculous, especially considering their colonial history.

Nevertheless, I don't think that the sensitivities of a group should compromise the free speech rights of others. People write, draw, and otherwise say things all the freakin' time that are offensive, stereotypical, possibly even incendiary. (A woman I met in Arizona claimed that President Obama, in addition to somehow being a secret Muslim, wants to destroy Israel. I don't even...) Glenn Beck has made a career of all three. But people aren't using their disenfranchisement to commit acts of terror in the name of, say, Tea Party values.

I don't think criticizing a religion should be verboten, whether it constitutes 1/6 of the world or a few million folks. I stand by my belief that an element of Islam seems to have abandoned a thousand-year-long tradition of relative tolerance, pro-science (algebra, etc.) for extremely repressive theocracies, oppression of women, and some hair-raising violence.

I think Enlightenment values of the republic allow for better morality then say living under the Taliban or the current régime in Iran. I stand by the young people of the so-called Arab Spring, whether they're observant Muslims, atheists, whatever, who don't want to live under repressive governments.

I'm well aware that many decisions made by the USA and France militarily have far from de-fused the situation. However, I guess I'm still not convinced that there isn't a common thread to the groups that attack Malala, Boko Haram, ISIS, etc. etc. Not all Muslims are violent wackos (duh), but those particular wackos, some of whom like the Taliban ain't fringe groups, want to live under Islamic theocracy, afaict

[Marduk]

We're not talking about whether the attacks were justified or not (although, given the fact that the targets of these attacks have been lumped in with governments that have engaged in aggressive warfare that has cost literally millions of Muslim lives certainly muddies that issue.) We're talking about whether the assertion that these attacks were "religiously based" is a helpful one to try and understand the situation and its motivations. I agree with yayfulness that the answer, regardless of how "true" the assertion in isolation may be, does little to enlighten people with what actually happened, and what continues to happen. It would be more true (although still ultimately reductionist, and only helpful as a jumping off point) to say that the attacks were just another volley in a long-standing war of tribalism.

Whether or not the U.S. has a secularist tradition is irrelevant (although I disagree with your assertion.) Whether or not Sharia law is oppressive is irrelevant (although your assertions are coming from an outside element that doesn't consider the totality of Islamic and Middle Eastern traditions, criticisms which ultimately are racist -- clean out the beam in your own country/religious tradition before casting those aspersions on others.) Whether or not we should be able to criticize religious values is irrelevant. Even whether or not Charlie Hebdo was a racist institution that took many cheap shots at an oppressed racial and religious minority is irrelevant, although certainly a salient point.

Some people may want to live under an Islamic theocracy, sure. And that may include the people involved in planning and effecting these attacks. But to say that religious values, rather than vast differences of racial, social, economic, and political motivations, catalyzed by centuries of aggression and counter-aggression that has caused both sides many casualties, but Islam and the Middle East orders of magnitudes more, are what the attacks are "about" is myopic and inchoate. Not only that, but it is rhetorically dangerous and continues to fuel the tribalistic worldviews that have perpetuated these conflicts for close to a millennium.

Your Mormon analogy fails precisely because, unlike this conflict, religion would be the primary, if only, difference between the hypothetical attackers and their victims. That is not the case with the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

[Portia]

I was up til 2:30 in the morning reading a wide variety of perspectives on the issue of what the French prime minister calls, but President Obama does not, "Islamic Fundamentalism." My main objections to this worldview can be summarized under the "Conflicts with the secular state" subheading of the so-titled Wikipedia article.

It was very strange, to say the least, to see atheist proponents of free speech (Bill Maher) and neo-cons (Newt Gingrich!) agree on the point that "radical Islam" is a threat to our way of life, Western values, etc. I guess we did see some of that odd bedfellows phenomenon in the wake of 9/11, although I was barely into my teens, so my views have naturally shifted.

How do you view criticizing Islam, either in its more extreme or mundane versions, as a priori racist? The populations of Indonesia, huge swaths of Africa, a handful of Western Europeans, Kurds, Western Chinese .... Muslims aren't a "race," correct?

(ETA links.)

[Marduk]

Again, you're oversimplifying.

I don't think any criticism of Islam is racist per se. I think that suggesting that violence is primarily a factor of Islamic belief system -- that is, that the people engaged in this sort of violence do so because they believe in some sect of Islam, "radical" or otherwise -- is rooted in a belief that views Islam as inherently problematic, that views "Western" ways of seeing the world as inherently better, and rejects authenticity of choice when it isn't rooted in Enlightenment modes of reasoning. It is the same system of belief that views hijabs as inherently sexist. I'm not saying there isn't sexism inherent in the cultures that arise from that region, or violence for that matter, I'm saying that Western perspectives of what that looks like are racist when they don't include the social milieu of those worlds. We can't pick and choose criticisms of other cultures as they suit us; what is or isn't morally acceptable is dependent on a multiplicity of factors. Not only that but WHY something is or isn't morally acceptable, or what we determine as the motivations for those actions HAS to evaluate the whole environment that creates it. Assigning religion as the primary motivation for the actions of these individuals, or any others, denies the complex narrative of their being. And denying someone their full humanity, when that humanity includes non-whiteness as a characteristic, is consciously or subconsciously motivated in part by an othering of non-white people. And that is, yes, racist.

And no, Muslims are not a race. But Christianity and atheism and secularism are Western -- WHITE -- traditions. Any criticisms of Islam have a racial component to them, because Islam is a religion predominantly of People of Color. In the same way, being bigoted against Hispanics is racist, although Hispanics run the gamut of races, as being Hispanic has to do primarily with country of origin, not with genealogy.

[Marduk]

Side note: when you're on the side of Bill Maher in terms of racial discussions, it is time to reevaluate your position, generally. (Not you, specifically, necessarily, just the general you)

[vorpal blade]

And denying someone their full humanity, when that humanity includes non-whiteness as a characteristic, is consciously or subconsciously motivated in part by an othering of non-white people. And that is, yes, racist.

And no, Muslims are not a race. But Christianity and atheism and secularism are Western -- WHITE -- traditions. Any criticisms of Islam have a racial component to them, because Islam is a religion predominantly of People of Color. In the same way, being bigoted against Hispanics is racist, although Hispanics run the gamut of races, as being Hispanic has to do primarily with country of origin, not with genealogy.

I'd like to know why it is not racist to assume that if a white person criticizes Muslims or Hispanics then that white person must be "denying someone their full humanity," or are being "bigoted." Why is it assumed that the white person is racist, but not the Muslim or Hispanic who makes such oversimplified, sweeping generalizations about white people? Why deny the complex narrative of white people? Why "other" white people? Why this non-White tribalism? How is this not ultimately racist? Why so myopic and inchoate?

[Marduk]

Because whiteness isn't a race, it is an amalgamation of people that are privileged predominantly for their skin color.

If I were to be saying this about Irish people, or French, exclusively, then you might have a point. "Race" is a social construct, and is related to cultures and customs. There's tons of sociological theory that I don't really want to get into here, but suffice it to say that: 1. White is not a race/culture in quite the same way as some of the more cohesive cultural constructs we're talking about, 2. The course of human history has been one of white peoples and places dominating the peoples of the world, not the other way around, and 3. You're right, that it is POSSIBLE that those critiques might not have those undertones, but the likelihood (given the social and educational milieu of this country) is that it DOES have those undertones, so the point is that we must work to prove the opposite.

So devoid of any context, sure, what you're saying makes some sense. But in the context it is grossly inaccurate.

[vorpal blade]

Nice try, but your rationalizations don’t fly.

Racism is feeling superior to another race, or judging negatively or holding those of another race to a different standard simply because they belong to that race. It has nothing to do with who is or is not privileged or dominating, with social or educational milieu, sociological theory, or any of the other smoke and mirrors politicians and race card players deploy to cover the fact that they practice what they condemn in others. Anyone can be a racist.

In various parts of this world Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Pacific Islanders and just about everyone else are part of an amalgamation of people that are privileged predominantly for their skin color. Muslims are privileged in many countries because of their religion. To use your definition of “whiteness” and call all these people of color “white” because they are in a privileged position due to their skin color is not helpful, and is the kind of double-speak that makes me wonder what other common words have very special meanings to the people who use them.

My point is not that a “white” person may not necessarily be a racist for criticizing other religions or races. My point is that if John Doe believes that the burden of proof is on Portia to prove that Portia is not a racist solely because of the stigma Portia has for being white and dares to criticize Muslims then John Doe is himself a racist. Being a racist has nothing to do with the color of your skin.

[Marduk]

You're free, of course, to ignore sociological theory, race theory, history, and any other discipline you choose to. Just know that they aren't simply pulled out of the air, or "rationalizations" that people use; they are based on research, analysis, and decades of work. Ignoring it may be similar to ignoring, say, evolutionary theory, or climate change (who knows? Maybe you do that too.)

I'd give you further reading (I just googled "why can't you be racist against white people?" and got enough hits, from reputable sources, both academic and popular, to keep anyone busy for the rest of the year) but I'm sure you'd just call them further rationalizations, so I'm not really sure this conversation can continue. It'd be like trying to discuss the geological record with a young Earth creationist.

[Digit]

Here's an interesting movie that imagines an alternate reality in which whites are the minority.

[vorpal blade]

You defend the anti-white racists with claims that research, analysis, and decades of work in sociological theory, race theory, history, and other disciplines support the anti-white racists. It all reminds me of the now-discredited scientific racists of a century ago. These scientists had tons of so-called research to “prove” that blacks were an inferior race. For decades they would write volumes of scientific papers in history, evolutionary theory, physical anthropology, anthropometry, craniometry, language, mythology, archaeology, and race theory to support their claims. If they had had google back then, and if someone had googled “why blacks are inferior to whites” you would have had enough references to keep you busy for years. I’m sure the scientists of that day, publishing in all the right reputable academic and popular publications were just as convinced, scientifically, of the inferiority of blacks as you seem to be of the moral inferiority of whites. They didn’t think of what they were publishing as rationalizations, but they were. And I’m sure they had the same sort of smug put-downs of contempt for those who challenged them.

Some scientists need to be ignored and not blindly followed. You need to take the long view that scientifically established facts ebb and flow, and tend to justify political or social movements of the time, or what pays the bills.

Defining racism so that it cannot be applied to yourself reminds me of Congress passing laws restricting our behavior, but exempting themselves. But the truth is not changed by changing definitions.

Feel free to drop out of the discussion at any time. My purpose is to challenge what you think is true and reexamine it. That can be hard on people.

[vorpal blade]

Here's an interesting movie that imagines an alternate reality in which whites are the minority.

This reminds me of an all-day class I took in race relations. The instructor started off by asking how you would be treated if you were a minority white in a black dominated nation. He wanted me to say that I would experience discrimination and prejudice.

But I couldn't see it that way. I said that I expected that I would be judged by the content of my character, not the color of my skin. Why should I assume that just because blacks dominated in the culture I would be treated unfairly? Wouldn't that depend on each individual person?

It totally destroyed his presentation of the day. He wanted me to believe that systematic discrimination is inevitable. I thought, what, doesn't he believe in equality and fairness when he doesn't have to show equality and fairness?

[Emiliana]

Here's an interesting movie that imagines an alternate reality in which whites are the minority.

This reminds me of an all-day class I took in race relations. The instructor started off by asking how you would be treated if you were a minority white in a black dominated nation. He wanted me to say that I would experience discrimination and prejudice.

But I couldn't see it that way. I said that I expected that I would be judged by the content of my character, not the color of my skin. Why should I assume that just because blacks dominated in the culture I would be treated unfairly? Wouldn't that depend on each individual person?

It totally destroyed his presentation of the day. He wanted me to believe that systematic discrimination is inevitable. I thought, what, doesn't he believe in equality and fairness when he doesn't have to show equality and fairness?

As someone who lived for two years as a white minority in a black dominated nation...When you are a visible minority, your race IS the first thing people notice about you and they DO make assumptions about you based on it. I can't tell you how many times I people tried to swindle me or cheat me because they assumed that my white skin meant I was both wealthy and naive. And children would literally follow me around yelling, "Hey, white person, give me money!"

To be fair, other assumptions made about me included that I was well-educated and self-sufficient, so it was a mixed bag, but there were still a whole handful of assumptions based on the single fact that I was white.

So no. As a visible minority, you are judged first by the color of your skin and only secondly by the content of your character.

ETA: There are definitely people who don't do this. But you can't say that it doesn't exist.

[vorpal blade]

You are right, Emiliana, it does exist. I think I'm trying to say, but didn't say well, two things about it. (1) It is not inevitable that it exists. The social structure, the social institutions don't force a person to behave in a certain way. Everyone who treats a person of another race in a particular manner because they belong to that race is doing something that he or she is personally responsible for. It is not up to governments to force change when it is an individual responsibility.

And (2) treating someone badly or unfairly because they belong to a certain race is evil. It doesn't matter if it is a white person treating a black person unfairly, or a black person treating a white person unfairly. Either way it is evil. If they make decisions based on your race without knowing you personally it is an evil.

[Marduk]

I think you totally misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying prejudice doesn't exist that is directed towards white people, I'm saying that it doesn't have institutional backing, and simply isn't as widespread or harmful. You're talking about individual actions and reactions, I'm talking about institutional power and global communities.

For example, the fact is (backed by research, research which, again, you can ignore if you choose, I'd just be curious what your metric for deciding to do so is, and how that doesn't allow an individual to just believe whatever they want) that a person with the name Joe on their resume has a much better chance of getting an interview than someone named Jose. Now, are there specific instances where the reverse may be true? Sure. But it is less endemic and less rooted in cultural expectations. And that's important to understand.

Think of it this way. The murder of one man by another is a horrific crime. But much worse is the genocide of a large group of people. And there are very different tools needed to address the latter than the former. Are the motivations behind one very different? Sure. Are they morally equivalent? In many ways, yes. But we can't use the same tools and systemic efforts to combat them, and the educational approach towards guiding thought is very different.

[vorpal blade]

Great! We are agreed that prejudice exists that is directed against white people. Isn't it interesting that it didn't take sociological theory, race theory, history, or any other discipline to come to that conclusion.