Charlie Hebdo attacks and religion

[Marduk]

But the point is that it is categorically different. How it functions sociologically is completely different, how it manifests is different, and what its makeup is are all entirely different. Therefore we can't simply transplant something that indicates racism and flip the races and call it racist. Institutional power matters.

[vorpal blade]

I understand that that is your point. However, you have a different definition of racism than I do, which would call for a different sort of discussion. I'm not talking about the same thing as you are when we talk about racism.

Perhaps we agree on the definition of prejudice. My point was that you are prejudiced against white people, and those who say the kinds of things you have written in this thread are also prejudiced against white people. Would you agree with me on this?

[Marduk]

No, I wouldn't.

The point is that you're defaulting to your own experience. You're treating it as the standard against which other experience ought to be measured. Our actions aren't moral or immoral in a vacuum; they must be compared against both our own experiences AND the experiences of those we interact with. When we fail to understand those different than us we often interact with them in ways which are harsh, especially when we do so based on our own experience that is vastly different from theirs. And the fact that there is an assumption of whiteness, an assumption of Christian values, an assumption of enlightenment thinking, as is the default in most of the Western world (and in certain ways, even in the rest of the world, although those characteristics are in the minority) THAT is what I'm defining as racist. In a world where most people don't experience racism, and where people of various races and ethnicities experience it about the same, then yes, your argument would be accurate. But that isn't the world we live in.

Would you agree that non-white people experience significantly more prejudice than white people?

[vorpal blade]

I understand your point of view, and there is some of it with which I agree. It is best, however, to use the fair and impartial definition of racism as found in standard dictionaries. The typical definition of “racism” is “a way of behaving or thinking that shows that you do not like or respect people who belong to races that are different from your own and that you believe your race is better than others.” http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... m#racism_3
There is no assumption of whiteness, Christian values, or enlightenment thinking. Notice how impartial and objective the dictionary definition is. There are no exceptions made for those without “institutional power.”

Because I am not defaulting to my own experience, or treating it is as the standard against which other experience ought to be measured I use the standard dictionary definition as the common, majority experience and standard. You, on the other hand, use the vocabulary of the revolutionary. Yours is the language which enables one to interact with others in ways which are harsh and fails to understand the majority whose experience is vastly different from yours.

One of the problems with revolutionaries is that they think they are justified in their prejudice towards some other amalgamation of people. They are blind to their own prejudice, seeing only the supposed injustices of the so-called “privileged class.” And they tend to draw sharp distinct between themselves and others. When the revolutionaries gain power they then exploit, persecute, and seek to destroy those who were previously in power, and often their own theoreticians who are no longer useful to them. They cannot see that their prejudice, or sometimes racism, is just as bad as those they have replaced. Partly that is because of the special definitions they use. Racism cannot apply to themselves, don't be absurd. It only applies to the other guy. And so their double standard is used to justify themselves.

It is interesting, but not surprising, that you don't recognize your anti-white prejudice. People are often blind to this sort of thing in themselves. I counted at least seven instances of anti-white prejudice in what you earlier wrote.

On the other hand people today are hypersensitive and often see prejudice against them in many instances where there may not be any such prejudice. I think there are too many politicians and rabble rousers in colleges who make a career out of stirring up people to feel they are being discriminated against.

You ask if non-white people experience significantly more prejudice than white people. First, let's look in the dictionary for the meaning of the word “prejudice.” Confusion results when we have our own special definitions of words, but we don't let others know. According to the Macmillan dictionary (which has a typical definition) “prejudice” means “an unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially the feeling of not liking a particular group or people.” Here I think we see the root of the problem. Most of us do not believe that our opinions or feelings are unreasonable. We are much more inclined to believe that others are being unreasonable. Now, logically, one would think that the less educated would be more likely to have unreasonable opinions and feelings, considering that education has not opened their minds or broadened their understanding. Therefore the less educated and less privileged should be MORE prejudiced. However teachers are often just as blind to their own prejudice as their students, and in fact much prejudice against men, particularly white men, is actually taught in many schools of higher learning.

I don't think it is particularly useful to divide the world into groups of “white” and “non-white.” For one thing most of us don't pay any attention to color. There is so much diversity within such divisions that generalizations become meaningless and often harmful. Rather than color, important distinctions can be made on the basis of behavior and beliefs, such as political ideology, cultural traditions, and particular religious beliefs. These differences sometimes include prejudices and racism. So yes, there are good reason to find something wrong with a given religious belief when it leads to hate, persecution, intolerance, and terrorism.

For another thing the distinctions between “white” and “non-white” are often subjective. If “white” means to you a person who is privileged primarily because of his skin color, then Barack Obama is arguably white.

Throughout the world many people have prejudices. I don't know if you can blame them if they are unaware of their prejudices, unless they knowingly refuse to open their eyes and examine themselves. Some people act fairly and decently to everyone, overcoming any culturally taught prejudices they may have been exposed to. Other people are forced to curb their prejudices because they lack the money, status, opportunity, courage, or power to act in the evil manner their upbringing teaches them to act. Those with power have the greater test of character, as they often have the greater opportunity to gratify their prejudices and are more immune to the consequences of the prejudices of others.

Because Barack Obama has considerable power his prejudices are adversely affecting us all, though some are not aware of it. And he is physically immune to the prejudices of others, though reportedly he is super sensitive to imagined prejudice. So, who experiences the greater prejudice? Well, the people who have prejudice in their hearts experience it more directly. Those who have the power of wealth and status are likely to experience the prejudice of others in ways other than directly through the pocketbook. The poor and powerless can be at the mercy of those with prejudice and who lack moral values. Directly or indirectly prejudice impoverishes us all.

In the world today most people live in countries of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. In those areas the power is in the hands of people who are generally free to exercise their prejudice against any group within their borders that they happen to not like, which usually includes what they call “white” people. In Western countries people are less free to exercise prejudice.

[Marduk]

It is an interesting place inside your mind. I'd be amused if your kind of thought wasn't so prevalent, and causing so much harm in the world today. In your world, dictionaries are impartial arbiters of language, not at all affected by power structures or bends of usage in everyday vernacular, Barack Obama is a racist who is destroying people, most people don't notice differences between them and other people, and Islam is a religious belief based on hate, persecution, intolerance, and terrorism (which apparently Christianity is immune to.)

Oh, also, that Obama is the recipient of huge privileges because of his skin color. That one is probably my favorite.

[Marduk]

Portia, I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I think this article sums up many of my problems with most Western critiques of Islam. Really, moving aside from religion and being able to produce well-reasoned critiques about it does not preclude the possibility of phobic remarks and mindsets.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ign=buffer

[Portia]

Portia, I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I think this article sums up many of my problems with most Western critiques of Islam. Really, moving aside from religion and being able to produce well-reasoned critiques about it does not preclude the possibility of phobic remarks and mindsets.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ign=buffer

Thanks so much for sharing! It was well-sourced and very persuasive. I may be the board participant with the most interest in/sympathy towards the so-called New Atheist movement, but I found this article to be a convincing takedown of some of my own blind spots.

I am reminded of the summer of 2006, the first time I ever really took a look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a critical eye for a persuasive writing class. My views on those wars (I was 18, so 2008 was my first election) not only turned 180 degrees, I learned to take what I read and hear with a grain of salt.

It's very natural to side with one's tribe, but I think this article made a convincing case that this is a case where there is a tangible human toll in doing so. Fortunately I adhere to no creed that says my views can't change unless a higher authority so dictates. :-)

I didn't click through to his sources, but was impressed by the depth of his citations. All that aside, I still appreciated Sam Harris's new book on meditation and spirituality outside a religious context.

And I've been following your responses on this thread, only. My doctor recommended avoiding neocon fantasias, for my blood pressure. /s

[TheBlackSheep]

Portia, us more liberal types have to show up for midterm elections. We don't show up and the older people do and that's when the tide often turns. It didn't happen in 2006 but it frequently does happen. So I hope that while 2008 was your first you showed up for 2010 and 2014 and not just 2012. (I voted in 2006 and I was amused when all my conservative classmates were shocked and appalled by the outcome of that election but I was the only one who voted. Nevada didn't put a liberal congressman in that year, and that's where I voted, so it didn't much matter anyway, but it still struck me as odd.)

...And Utah has odd year elections too which we should all vote in. And primaries!

[Portia]

Portia, us more liberal types have to show up for midterm elections. We don't show up and the older people do and that's when the tide often turns. It didn't happen in 2006 but it frequently does happen. So I hope that while 2008 was your first you showed up for 2010 and 2014 and not just 2012. (I voted in 2006 and I was amused when all my conservative classmates were shocked and appalled by the outcome of that election but I was the only one who voted. Nevada didn't put a liberal congressman in that year, and that's where I voted, so it didn't much matter anyway, but it still struck me as odd.)

...And Utah has odd year elections too which we should all vote in. And primaries!

I know I voted in '08, '12, and '14. I believe but cannot swear that I voted in '10 (I had run away at the time to another state).

Of course we live in the state that has reauthorized the firing squad and has a legislator defend marital rape. So, yeah, no Kafkaesque nightmare here, folks.

[TheBlackSheep]

Well, in defense of our fine if kinda crazy state, I believe they only re-legalized execution by firing squad in case lethal injection is found to be cruel and unusual punishment because of the recent horrors in other states. They want to be able to fulfill their obligation to fulfill executions should that be taken off the table. I hate that we have a death penalty here or anywhere in the country or anywhere in the world. I don't think it makes sense ethically, financially, logically, any of the -lies. I just don't think this particular thing is so backwards as many people are suggesting. And I dunno, if lethal injection is as painful as they say it might be, maybe a good ol' fashioned shooting is more humane anyway, if we're going to do it.

[Portia]

Well, in defense of our fine if kinda crazy state, I believe they only re-legalized execution by firing squad in case lethal injection is found to be cruel and unusual punishment because of the recent horrors in other states. They want to be able to fulfill their obligation to fulfill executions should that be taken off the table. I hate that we have a death penalty here or anywhere in the country or anywhere in the world. I don't think it makes sense ethically, financially, logically, any of the -lies. I just don't think this particular thing is so backwards as many people are suggesting. And I dunno, if lethal injection is as painful as they say it might be, maybe a good ol' fashioned shooting is more humane anyway, if we're going to do it.

I think a Camus-style short story is warranted here. (Must pick up his stuff at the library today.)

Stand by my assertion that marital rape guy is creepy.

[vorpal blade]

Portia, I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I think this article sums up many of my problems with most Western critiques of Islam. Really, moving aside from religion and being able to produce well-reasoned critiques about it does not preclude the possibility of phobic remarks and mindsets.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ign=buffer

Thanks so much for sharing! It was well-sourced and very persuasive. I may be the board participant with the most interest in/sympathy towards the so-called New Atheist movement, but I found this article to be a convincing takedown of some of my own blind spots.

I am reminded of the summer of 2006, the first time I ever really took a look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a critical eye for a persuasive writing class. My views on those wars (I was 18, so 2008 was my first election) not only turned 180 degrees, I learned to take what I read and hear with a grain of salt.

It's very natural to side with one's tribe, but I think this article made a convincing case that this is a case where there is a tangible human toll in doing so. Fortunately I adhere to no creed that says my views can't change unless a higher authority so dictates.

I didn't click through to his sources, but was impressed by the depth of his citations. All that aside, I still appreciated Sam Harris's new book on meditation and spirituality outside a religious context.

And I've been following your responses on this thread, only. My doctor recommended avoiding neocon fantasias, for my blood pressure. /s

Portia,

I agree that Glenn Greenwald is a persuasive writer. He writes well. In the article that Marduk references Greenwald is trying to prove that Sam Harris is guilty of Islamophobia. I can see how Greenwald might be convincing if (a) you don’t need proof for statements like “That is the Harris worldview: obsessed with bad acts of foreign Muslims, almost entirely blind to - if not supportive of - the far worse acts of westerners like himself,” (b) you only read one side of the story, and (c) you don’t check up on Greenwald’s sources.

For (b) I’d suggest that anyone interested in reading what Sam Harris has to say in his own defense read this article. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... s_on_islam

Now for (c) let’s check some of Greenwald’s sources. There is one argument Greenwald makes that he claims is supported by facts. I’d like to address those supposed facts. After defining what Greenwald means by “Islamophobia” he says:

I believe all of those definitions fit Harris quite well, as evinced by this absurd and noxious overgeneralization from Harris:
The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed."

That is utter garbage: and dangerous garbage at that. It is no more justifiable than saying that the only future which religious Jews - as Jews - can envision is one in which non-Jews live in complete slavery and subjugation: a claim often made by anti-semites based on highly selective passages from the Talmud. It is the same tactic that says Christians - as Christians - can only envisage the extreme subjugation of women and violence against non-believers based not only on the conduct of some Christians but on selective passages from the Bible. Few would have difficultly understanding why such claims about Jews and Christians are intellectually bankrupt and menacing.

Worse still, these claims from Harris about how Muslims think are simply factually false. An AFP report on a massive 2008 Gallup survey of the Muslim world simply destroyed most of Harris' ugly generalizations about the beliefs of Muslims:

"A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence. . . . It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington. . . .
"About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. . . .
"Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed. . . .
"But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.
"What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said."

Indeed, even a Pentagon-commissioned study back in 2004 - hardly a bastion of PC liberalism - obliterated Harris' self-justifying stereotype that anti-American sentiment among Muslims is religious and tribal rather than political and rational. That study concluded that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies": specifically "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" — through the US's "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan".

First, let me give more of the Harris quote that Greenwald is drawing from:

While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

It’s a bold statement, and probably overstated. But the odd thing is that when I study the sources Greenwald uses to substantiate his claim that Harris is “simply factually false” I find that they actually tend to support Harris more than Greenwald. I’d like to address the Gallup poll on another day, but first I’ll discuss the Pentagon commissioned study.

The study, “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication,” does say that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.” It seems to be criticism of something President George Bush said. The Task Force gives as evidence for their statement a June 2004 Zogby Poll. However, the poll shows that in the five nations where the poll was taken (Morocco, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and United Arab Emirates) three of these countries had an unfavorable opinion of our “Freedom/Democracy.” In the two countries with a favorable opinion the majority was slight, 53% in Morocco and 57% in Jordan. While there was a much greater unfavorable opinion of our policies, the Task Force would have been more correct to say “Most Muslims hate us for our freedom/democracy, but even more of them hate us for our policies seen as a threat to their religion.”

Despite the Task Force’s desire to put a pro-Muslim spin on the data, Greenwald still totally misrepresents the Defense Science Board. According to the report that Greenwald endorses the Muslims hate our policies for religious reasons and not political or “rational” reasons. The report agrees with Harris. The simple factual truth, according to Greenwald’s sources, is just the opposite of what Greenwald claims.

I think the Defense Science Board does a good job of putting the conflict in perspective.

We call it a war on terrorism – but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself.… This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself…. Therefore, in stark contrast to the Cold War, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state/empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity – an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a “War on Terrorism.”

So Muslims hate our policies because they see these policies as a threat to the survival of their religion.

We can gain some additional insight from the following paragraph from the source Greenwald approves of:

Thus it is possible to show the Jihadis as having a wider degree of sympathetic (Arab majorities), indirect (Islamists), and direct support than most of the regimes. Certainly Arabs, by an overwhelming majority, sympathize with, or are active in the cause of Islamic Restoration. Therefore it is even more interesting to track the relative weight of the non-Jihadi Islamists, also called “moderate” or “New Islamists,” because their professed vision of Islamic Restoration is non-violent, tolerant, and relatively pluralistic. It can be argued that the New Islamists are in fact the true center of gravity in the Muslim World today, in that they have the most authority to make change, and draw the highest levels of sympathy from less-active, but receptive and supportive Arab majorities28. In this construct the Jihadis are seen as perhaps necessary to make change begin and thus become eventually inevitable, but the radicals do not appeal to the majority of Muslims in terms of practical political change if and when old regimes finally collapse.

The Task Force assures us with the comforting thought that the vision of the Islamic Restoration is non-violent, tolerant, and relatively pluralistic for the true center of gravity in the Muslim World. But note that this does not mean that the majority are opposed to the Jihadis, defined in the report as “the fighting groups.” Jihadis might be necessary to make change, but most Muslims would not like the Jihadis permanently in charge after the change is made. [They can hope, but getting rid of the “necessary” evil of the radicals has not proven easy in other successful movements around the world.] The “inevitable” nature of violent means used to bring about one’s vision of the future reminds me of what Walter Duranty, Pulitzer Prize winning (1932) reporter to the New York Times, and apologist for Stalin, famously said, “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” For Duranty and Stalin those eggs were the heads of tens of millions of people.

Nor would Americans shy away from using violence to ensure our vision of the future. At least, many times in the past a sufficient number of Americans have supported various wars, and we consider ourselves to be a peace-loving people. One difference might be that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not sympathize with a cause that finds as perhaps necessary or inevitable violent radicals. It is an interesting question to ask what the vision of Islamic Restoration means to Muslims today, and what a “non-violent, tolerant, and relatively pluralistic” Muslim society would look like. The history of the last [almost] 14 centuries gives one reason to be concerned. The kind of societies we have today where Muslims dominate also gives us pause.

I believe that among Muslims there are widely divergent visions of Islamic Restoration. I have to smile when I think of the phrase “widely divergent.” What that means to me may be different from what it means to you…or to Greenwald. Consider this quote from Greenwald. After talking about David Rohde’s experiences as a captive among the Taliban

As is to be expected, Rohde’s account contains widely divergent depictions of his captors — some are violence-obsessed religious fanatics while others “showed glimpses of humanity” to him. As is clear by now, the Tablian are not monolithic.

I think this is an important point. There may be two Muslims who are willing to cut off your head just because you are a Western journalist. But some apologists are going to represent it as a “widely divergent” nature of the two men because only one of them is a “violence-obsessed religious fanatic” while the other shows “glimpses of humanity” to the victim.

So, what is the vision of Islamic Restoration that the Task Force report says is behind what is happening in the Muslim World and is supported by the majority? The Task Force doesn’t go into detail. If you google “Islamic Restoration” you come up with a number of hits regarding a caliphate. According to the Wikipedia article on the subject a “caliphate is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph – a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.” “In 2014, the extremist group ISIS, [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] declared itself a Caliphate; nonetheless, its authority remains unrecognised by any country.”

A 29 June 2014 Time article explains what the restoration of a Caliphate would mean for many http://time.com/2938317/isis-militants- ... caliphate/

Restoring the caliphate, and with it a measure of the glory that attended Islam’s golden age, has been the stated goal of Sunni Muslim activists for decades, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hizb ut-Tahrir to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. But al-Baghdadi’s group is the first to assert it. “The time has come for those generations that were drowning in oceans of disgrace, being nursed on the milk of humiliation, and being ruled by the vilest of all people, after their long slumber in the darkness of neglect — the time has come for them to rise,” said the statement…. The fact is, a certain nostalgia for the caliphate lingers in much of the Muslim community — and not only among fundamentalists, or so-called takfiri groups like ISIS that see Shi‘ite Muslims as apostates. Catholics still have their Pope, these mainstream believers point out, and Eastern Orthodox Christians their patriarch.

But there are Caliphs and there are Caliphs. And while many, like the current Christian leaders, preach peace, the summons from the Mesopotamian desert Sunday was to “greedily drink the blood” of nonbelievers according to an early translation posted online:

“The sun of jihad has risen … The glad tidings of good are shining. Triumph looms on the horizon. The signs of victory have appeared. Here the flag of the Islamic State, the flag of tawhīd (monotheism), rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo to Diyala. … So rush O Muslims and gather around your khalīfah [caliphate], so that you may return as you once were for ages, kings of the earth and knights of war. Come so that you may be honored and esteemed, living as masters with dignity. Know that we fight over a religion that Allah promised to support. We fight for an ummah [global Muslim community] to which Allah has given honor, esteem, and leadership, promising it with empowerment and strength on the earth. Come O Muslims to your honor, to your victory. By Allah, if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the west, and rush to your religion and creed, then by Allah, you will own the earth, and the east and west will submit to you. This is the promise of Allah to you. This is the promise of Allah to you.”

The Task Force that Greenwald quotes mentions an Islamic Revival as a motivating cause of the widespread movement of which the radical fighters are only the tip of the iceberg. I found this quote form Wikipedia to be interesting:

Islamic revival (Arabic: التجديد الإسلامي‎ aẗ-ẗajdid l-ʾIslāmiyyah, also Arabic: الصحوة الإسلامية‎ aṣ-Ṣaḥwah l-ʾIslāmiyyah, "Islamic awakening") refers to a return to the pure fundamentals of the Islamic religion. Revivals have traditionally been a periodic occurrence throughout Islamic history and the Islamic world.[1]
In contemporary history, an Islamic revival is thought to have began roughly sometime in the 1970s (although strong movement began earlier in the century in Egypt and South Asia) and is manifested in greater religious piety and in a growing adoption of Islamic culture.[1][2] One striking example of it is the increase in attendance at the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, which grew from 90,000 in 1926 to 2 million in 1979.[3]

Two of the most important events that inspired and/or strengthened the resurgence were the Arab oil embargo and subsequent quadrupling of the price of oil in the mid-1970s, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution that established an Islamic republic in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. The first created a flow of many billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia to fund Islamic books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques around the world; the second undermined the assumption that Westernization strengthened Muslim countries and was the irreversible trend of the future.

The revival is a reversal of the Westernisation approach common in Arab and Asian governments earlier in the 20th century.[4] It is often associated with the political Islamic movement, Islamism,[5] and other forms of re-Islamisation. Among Muslim immigrants and their children who live in non-Muslim countries, it includes a feeling of a "growing universalistic Islamic identity" or transnational Islam,[6] brought on by easier communications, media and travel.[7]

The revival has also been accompanied by some religious extremism and attacks on civilians and military targets by the extremists representing a part of the revival.[7]

We can hope, against modern experience and historical precedent, that we can convert the Muslims to a version of their vision of Islamic Restoration and Revival that accepts “the value structure of Western Modernity.” In the words of the Defense Science Board Task Force “If we really want to see the Muslim World as a whole and the Arabic-speaking World in particular, move toward our understanding of “moderation” and “tolerance,” we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American Way…. This should not be seen as an intractable enterprise.” We can always hope.

[vorpal blade]

It is an interesting place inside your mind. I'd be amused if your kind of thought wasn't so prevalent, and causing so much harm in the world today. In your world, dictionaries are impartial arbiters of language, not at all affected by power structures or bends of usage in everyday vernacular, Barack Obama is a racist who is destroying people, most people don't notice differences between them and other people, and Islam is a religious belief based on hate, persecution, intolerance, and terrorism (which apparently Christianity is immune to.)

Oh, also, that Obama is the recipient of huge privileges because of his skin color. That one is probably my favorite.

Marduk, you are such a great kidder. But it occurred to me just recently that not everyone is aware of our long history of playful banter. Some might not realize you are teasing me and might actually take you seriously in this post. So I thought I should set the record straight about what I really think of Islam. “A religion based on hate, persecution, intolerance, and terrorism?” Ha! Not at all. Here is what I really like about it, and because I’ve recently been studying data taken from public opinion surveys I thought I'd give some plain facts while I am at it. There are many sources I could use, but I like this one from the Pew Research Center. If you are thinking I’m just kidding, I’m not. I’m sincere. Visit http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worl ... ciety.aspx


WHAT I MOST LIKE ABOUT ISLAM

A new Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the globe finds that most adherents of the world’s second-largest religion are deeply committed to their faith and want its teachings to shape not only their personal lives but also their societies and politics. In all but a handful of the 39 countries surveyed, a majority of Muslims say that Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven and that belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. Many also think that their religious leaders should have at least some influence over political matters.

I really like that. It reminds me a lot about the way I feel toward the LDS church. All of these things are good thing. I like it when people are deeply committed to their faith. People ought to want the good teachings of their religion to shape their personal life and also their societies and politics. If it doesn’t then the religion is meaningless and irrelevant. They ought to believe strongly that theirs in the one true faith instead of wishy-washy fuzzy thinking. I wish more people in the United States realized that our religious leaders have important things to say to guide and influence us, and we ought NOT to suppose that separation of church and state means that religious leaders should have no influence in politics.

Belief that faith in God is necessary to be a moral person.

The survey asked Muslims if it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values. For the majority of Muslims, the answer is a clear yes. Median percentages of roughly seven in- ten or more in Central Asia (69%), sub-Saharan Africa (70%), South Asia (87%), the Middle East-North Africa region (91%) and Southeast Asia (94%) agree that morality begins with faith in God. In Southern and Eastern Europe, where secular traditions tend to be strongest, a median of 61% agree that being moral and having good values depend on belief in God.10 In only two of the 38 countries where the question was asked – Albania (45%) and Kazakhstan (41%) – do fewer than half of Muslims link morality to faith in God. (The question was not asked in Afghanistan.)

Muslims don’t believe in drinking alcohol, and I think that is admirable and prevents a lot of problems.

Most Muslims surveyed say that drinking alcohol is morally wrong. More than half in all countries surveyed hold this view, including more than nine in- ten in Thailand (98%), Ghana (93%), Malaysia (93%), the Palestinian territories (92%), Indonesia (91%), Niger (91%) and Pakistan (91%).

Suicide is considered morally wrong.

Majorities of Muslims in all countries believe that suicide is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 29 of the 37 countries where this question was asked.22 This view is almost universal inThailand (nearly 100%), Cameroon (98%) and Kenya (97%). In only four of the countries where this question was asked do as many as one-in ten Muslims say suicide is morally acceptable. All four countries are in sub-Saharan Africa: Guinea Bissau (13%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (11%), Mozambique (10%) and Uganda (10%).

Euthanasia is considered morally wrong.

As with suicide, most Muslims believe that euthanasia – defined in the survey as ending the life of an incurably ill person – is morally wrong. A majority of Muslims in 33 of the 37 countries surveyed hold this view, including more than three-quarters in 17 countries.

Abortion is considered morally wrong.

Most Muslims say that having an abortion is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 24 of the 37 countries where the question was asked.23 Azerbaijan is the only country where fewer than a quarter (23%) say terminating a pregnancy is immoral. By contrast, few Muslims say that abortion is morally acceptable. In only five countries do one-in-ten or more say the practice is morally permissible: Bangladesh (18%), Uganda (15%), Bosnia-Herzegovina (14%), Mozambique (13%) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (10%).

Sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.

A strong majority of Muslims in nearly all countries surveyed condemn pre- and extramarital sex, including three-quarters or more in 29 of the 36 countries where the question was asked. This view is nearly universal in Thailand
(99%), Jordan (96%), Lebanon (96%) and Egypt (95%).

Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe as well as sub-Saharan Africa are somewhat more tolerant of sex outside marriage. At least one quarter in Bosnia-Herzegovina (26%) and Albania (25%) say sex outside marriage is morally acceptable. And in sub-Saharan Africa, nearly two-in-ten share this view in Guinea Bissau (19%), Chad (18%) and Uganda (18%).

Prostitution is morally wrong.

Muslims are even more emphatic that prostitution is morally wrong. More than seven in-ten in each country surveyed say it is immoral. Only in Chad (10%) do as many as one-in-ten Muslims say prostitution is morally acceptable. Meanwhile, in a few countries, small percentages of Muslims say prostitution is not a moral issue: Bangladesh (12%), Chad (12%), Djibouti (10%) and Guinea Bissau (10%).

Homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked. Only in three countries do as many as one in- ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%).

In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%).

Belief in one true religion.

In 34 of the 38 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims believe that Islam is the one true religion that can lead to eternal life in heaven. Overwhelming majorities of Muslims say that Islam is the only religion that leads to eternal life in heaven in most countries surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt (96%), Jordan (96%), Iraq (95%), Morocco (94%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Somewhat smaller majorities take this view in Lebanon (66%) and Tunisia (72%). In most countries surveyed in sub-Saharan Africa, more than six-in-ten Muslims say that only Islam can lead to eternal life. Somewhat fewer take this view in Cameroon (57%), Guinea Bissau (54%), Chad (50%) and Mozambique (49%).

Similarly, in all but one country surveyed in Central Asia, at least six-in-ten Muslims say that Islam is the only path to eternal life. The exception is Kazakhstan, where 29% say that Islam is the only path that leads to eternal life, while 49% say that many religions can serve this role.

At least half of Muslims in most Southern and Eastern European countries surveyed also say that Islam is the exclusive path to heaven. Albanian Muslims are the exception: 37% say Islam is the only faith leading to eternal life, while a quarter say many faiths can lead to heaven, and 38% offer no clear opinion on the issue.

Moral obligation to try to convert others to the one true faith.

In most countries surveyed, at least half of Muslims believe it is their religious duty to try to convert others to the Islamic faith. Only in Indonesia and some countries in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe do a clear majority say Muslims are not obliged to proselytize.

The belief that Muslims are obligated to proselytize is particularly widespread in sub- Saharan Africa. Across the region, at least three-quarters of Muslims believe it is their religious duty to try to spread Islam to non- Muslims.

A majority of Muslims in the South Asian countries surveyed also say trying to convert others to Islam is a religious duty. This sense is nearly universal in Afghanistan, where 96% of Muslims believe proselytizing is a duty of their faith. In Pakistan, 85% of Muslims share this view, as do 69% in Bangladesh.

In the Middle East and North Africa, a clear majority of Muslims in most countries surveyed believe trying to convert others is a religious duty, including roughly nine-in-ten in Jordan (92%) and Egypt (88%). Lebanon is the one country in the region where opinion is more divided (52% say proselytizing is a religious duty, 44% say it is not).

In Southeast Asia, a strong majority of Muslims in Malaysia (79%) and Thailand (74%) believe trying to convert others is a religious duty. However, most Indonesian Muslims disagree (65% say it is not a religious duty, 31% say it is).

Belief that no conflict exists between religion and science.

Most Muslims do not believe there is an inherent tension between religion and science. In just two of the 23 countries where the question was asked do more than half of Muslims say there is a conflict between faith and science. In fact, at least half of Muslims in 17 countries say no conflict exists. Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa are among the least likely to believe there is a conflict between science and religion. Fewer than one-in-five express this view in Morocco (18%), Egypt (16%), Iraq (15%), Jordan (15%) and the Palestinian territories (14%). However, a higher percentage of Muslims in Lebanon
(53%) and Tunisia (42%) say there is a conflict.

Belief that much of Western entertainment is harmful to society.

In nearly every country surveyed in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa, a majority of Muslims say Western entertainment is bad for their society, including at least eight-in-ten in Pakistan (88%), the Palestinian territories (81%), Tanzania (80%) and Uganda (80%). Guinea Bissau is the only country in these four regions where fewer than half (47%) believe Western cultural exports are harmful. In Central Asia, a majority of Muslims in Uzbekistan (81%) and Kyrgyzstan (69%) believe Western popular culture has a negative effect on morality, but fewer hold this view in Azerbaijan (52%), Tajikistan (51%), Turkey (50%) and Kazakhstan (50%).

Women should obey their husbands. If you add the phrase, “when their husbands follow the Lord” I would agree.

Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband. In 20 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims believe a wife must obey her spouse.

Muslims in South Asia and Southeast Asia overwhelmingly hold this view. In all countries surveyed in these regions, roughly nine-in-ten or more say wives must obey their husbands. Similarly, in all countries surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa, about three-quarters or more say the same.

Across Central Asia, most Muslims say that wives must obey their husbands, although views vary from country to country. Opinion ranges from nearly nine-in-ten in Tajikistan (89%) to about half in Kazakhstan (51%).

A tradition of alms giving. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the- ... e-summary/

Annual almsgiving, which by custom is supposed to equal approximately 2.5% of a person’s total wealth, is almost as widely observed as fasting during Ramadan. In Southeast Asia and South Asia, a median of roughly nine-in-ten Muslims (93% and 89%, respectively) say they perform zakat. At least three-quarters of respondents in the countries surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa (79%) and sub-Saharan Africa (77%) also report that they perform zakat. Smaller majorities in Central Asia (69%) and Southern and Eastern Europe (56%) say they practice annual almsgiving.

Only one true way to understand the religion’s teachings.

The survey asked Muslims whether they believe there is only one true way to understand Islam’s teachings or if multiple interpretations are possible. In 32 of the 39 countries surveyed, half or more Muslims say there is only one correct way to understand the teachings of Islam.

Brotherhood across nations. It is wonderful to attend church services in many different countries of the world, as I have done, and felt that I was among my own kind. Stronger than country citizenship was the bonds of a shared religion. In several studies we see that this is also true for Muslims, and it is a great unifying thing. This study was done in Iran. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... re_emb.pdf

Respondents were asked to choose whether they think of themselves as primarily a “citizen of Iran/America,” a “Muslim/member of my religion,” a “member of my ethnic group,” or “not so much in these ways but primarily as an individual.” A large majority of Iranians (62%) said they saw themselves primarily as a member of their religion. Just 27% of respondents considered themselves “primarily as a citizen of Iran.” Very few Iranians identified themselves “primarily as a member of my ethnic group” (4%), or “primarily as an individual” (4%).

I’d like to point out that Greenwald is right about some things. He says, and I agree,

Let's first quickly dispense with some obvious strawmen. Of course one can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That's self-evident, and nobody is contesting it.

[TheBlackSheep]

Vorpal, I appreciated that last post. I appreciate looking for the good in others. I just wondered if you agreed that a belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. I'm an agnostic, so I don't actively believe in God, but I believe I'm a moral person. I just wondered where you fall on that.

[vorpal blade]

Vorpal, I appreciated that last post. I appreciate looking for the good in others. I just wondered if you agreed that a belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. I'm an agnostic, so I don't actively believe in God, but I believe I'm a moral person. I just wondered where you fall on that.

TBS, thank you for the question. I hesitated on that point, wondering if I really did feel the same way. Please understand that in what I am about to say I have no intention of offending you. I respect the fact that many people who are atheists or agnostics hold wonderful moral values. They often feel it is important to “turn the other cheek,” or “do to others what you want them to do to you.” In fact, it seems to me that in relationships with their fellow human beings an agnostic may hold the same moral values as Jesus Christ.

The question in my mind is this, what makes someone a moral person? Is it simply the fact that a person holds moral values? I don’t think so, and I’ll try to explain why I think the way I do. A person who has a great deal of faith in God gets his moral values from his understanding of God’s moral values. He may not understand why God has these moral values. He may disagree with God until he has gained a personal testimony of them through the power of the Holy Ghost. But if he acts in accordance with his honest and sincere understanding of what God expects of him then he is a moral person.

On the other hand, from whence does an atheist or an agnostic get his or her moral values? Since they do not come from a higher authority, it has to be from what that person believes as a result of study and observation. Perhaps they get a sense of moral values from the Holy Spirit, but they do not acknowledge that or believe in it. So they have to accept what some other person or what they themselves feel is best for themselves and humanity. The problem is that this has no sure foundation. It will change under different circumstances. It will change as the person matures and has different experiences. It may well change because the individual’s private moral values can be rationalized, altered, modified, or ignored when the values are personally inconvenient. It is so easy to justify and reconfigure moral values that are self-imposed when they stand in the way of what we really want, or think we want. We do this without even realizing it.

There is something that Inverse Insomniac said in question #81320 that stuck with me as well. "Selective obedience is a mockery of true obedience." I have no idea if Inverse Insomniac would agree with my reinterpretation of this but it also seems true to me that “selective moral values are a mockery of true moral values.”

So, to me an atheist or agnostic cannot be a moral person, because all the moral values they hold are negotiable, situational, changeable, and temporary.

I admit there is much danger in a person or group who feel that only they believe in God and so only they have moral values and so everyone outside of the group is morally inferior. That is a big problem as a result of a failure to recognize that anyone of any religious faith, or none at all, can have moral values that are at least as good as your own.

That’s my understanding.

[vorpal blade]

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.

Just thought you would like to know that this morning, just before a meeting was to begin, I asked a co-worker with an Hispanic name, if he felt the same way about it as you do. Turns out, he did. He went on at great length about it, and the others at the meeting were shocked to here that such things went on around here.

[Rainbow_connection]

My husband is Hispanic. He insisted that we not give any of our children Hispanic sounding names because he doesn't want to hamper their future careers. My mother-in-law agrees.

[Portia]

My husband is Hispanic. He insisted that we not give any of our children Hispanic sounding names because he doesn't want to hamper their future careers. My mother-in-law agrees.

Did you give them (your presumably Anglo- or at least non-Hispanic) surname? If not, why not?

[Rainbow_connection]

My husband's last name actually doesn't sound typically Hispanic. People are always asking him where he's from. When he says California they ask where he's really from, then they ask where his last name is from. It's almost funny how badly they need to know why a clearly "ethnic" person has his last name.

[vorpal blade]

My husband is Hispanic. He insisted that we not give any of our children Hispanic sounding names because he doesn't want to hamper their future careers. My mother-in-law agrees.

Sounds like my co-worker. He goes by the name "Joe" but his actual name is "Jose." He has a popular Hispanic surname. His daughter married the son of a friend of mine who has an English surname. His daughter wanted to give her son, my co-worker's grandson, the name "Jose" for a middle name. My co-worker insisted that they do not. He said it would hinder his grandson in any future career. He also said he wished he had changed his name to "John Smith," a long time ago. But then, he said, once he showed up they would look at him and they would know. He also said that apparently being just 1/4 Hispanic entitles you to certain benefits, so his grandson could have the benefits of being Hispanic without possibly being the victim of prejudice. I find it strange that anyone would be prejudiced against Hispanics, as I have nothing against them, and as far as I know none of my friends have anything against them, but my friend Jose sure thinks it makes a difference.