TheLeviathan

Do you worry about alienating the West Baptist church? Or are they just hateful douche bags that deserve condemnation? I'll ask again, why the distinction in treatment?

You changed the terms again. The actual number of active KKK members is small, does that mean the millions of racists in the country aren't part of the problem? Millions of Muslims support oppression and many degrees of violence. Real, active oppression of women, minorities, gays, and others. This is a fact Dave, your willingness to accept it or not doesn't change that.

Dave, that's simply not true. I wish it was. In fact, that's my hope someday, but it isn't true today.

Why is that damaging? When Christians boycott gay marriage or when some ass hat like Mike Pence tries to sign discriminatory laws, do we bite our tongue about the label? We don't hide behind goofy terms when we criticize evangelicals or christians when they do hateful things, so why should we now? What's the distinction? See, me? I call 'em both out, because what I stand for (and against) is consistent for any creed, color, nationality, ethnicity, or otherwise. So help me understand why this should be different. Oh, and also, I'm ok with the reprecussions. If change was easy it'd happen all the time. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is wade into friendly fire to explain where we went wrong. I hold no hope for the right wing on this issue, they're a lost cause. I hope, maybe naively, that the left can still be salvaged. Perhaps I'm wrong and I'll just keep being called a bigot by hypocrites, but sometimes the price of doing the right thing is a lot of flak along the way. I agree, but that wasn't where I was going with it. When a hardcore Christian homophobe passes a law to oppress gays (or transexuals), do left-wingers tip toe around their religion? Not that I see. It seems that, simply by virtue of being a largely white, powerful group that Christians are subjected to a different level of condemnation and vitriol than someone who does the same (or much, much worse) and is part of the Muslim faith. Now, believe me, I shed no tears for the Christian's hurt feelings. If you don't like being condemned, quit being a dick and oppressing people. But I don't change my tune if it's Muslim hatred and yet....the left does. They produce false narratives about this being "only a small percentage". That's just false. The small percentage are terrorists, but a VERY sizable percentage are active or complicit oppressors. So why do we change our tune? To me, therein lies my push. A push shared by guys like Maher, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Maajid Nawaaz, Malala Yousafzai, and many others. We need the left, the progressive on the right side of this rather than (unintentionally I believe) expecting too little out of Islam. They find every other excuse in the book, as this thread shows, to avoid taking the religion to task. So I'll go back to my first question - why the difference?

Oh believe me, I appreciate your voice in this too Smerf. We go way back and I have a ton of respect for your opinions, it's nice to see that you can cut out ideology and strive for this narrative to change.

I don't think I asked that well...let me try again. When Christians mobilize in opposition to abortion or gay rights, do you think the left says things like "oppressive Christians" or is Christianity talked of more generally? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with that but i'd like you to consider it truthfully.

Not everything is black and white, but isn't oppression in that camp with racism?I can say oppressive Islam, but why is that necessary? I've found others that try to narrow things do so to avoid admitting the scope of the problem. Just how pervasive does it need to be before we can talk that way? But I want you to consider something else: I have no qualms about calling out Islam because I do so with no hate or scorn for the faith, only in its practice. Just as I call out Christians with no qualms when they preach hate against gays. Does it make me a bigot when I do that also? Do you stay consistent in your condemnations? If yes, then we really agree but we're struggling to find common language to express it. If no, then perhaps you should think long and hard about why your convictions produce different results.

I think you misinterpreted my reply. Racism is a human problem because of human nature. Oppressive islamic practices are the same, a bad reflection of human nature. Insofar as that, they are the same. So what matters is how we respond to these reflections. Racism is always wrong. So is any other violent or oppressive system. In the Muslim world the practice of Islam is widely oppressive and too frequently violent. We have to be willing to condemn practices like that in all forms regardless of the ethnicity, sex, religion, or age of those practicing violence and oppression. Too often the left shies away from that responsibility under the guise of well intentioned, but ill-thought fears of bigotry. Maajid said this well. Like it or not, many of those responses to me did exactly that. The irony in that is the point he made about the soft racism of low expectations while accusing others of bigotry. While it may feel wrong to single out the religion to some, that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. The thing about conviction is that you have to have it even when it isn't comfortable. Identifying Islam as the source of the oppression only identifies it as the powerful, common tool being used by misguided humans. But identifying it for what it gets at the source of the oppression rather than falsely blaming the symptoms. Reforming the source is the path to peace. So if we have genuine conviction for peace and human dignity, we have to let that guide us, even if that means calling on ethnic groups, religions, nations, or anyone else to change. Convictions like peace and dignity should be demanded of all without qualification.

I agree with that statement! (here it comes....) But....I'm not sure it matters. Couldn't you say the same about racism, sexism, or anything else? At the end of the day I'm not sure how that statement gets us going forward. I agree that Islam, like anything else like it, can be used for good or evil by people. The problem is that the common tool in these regions for violence and oppression is Islam. I'd like to reform that so Islam is used for peace and that will make the lives of so many, so much better.

Perhaps I should just let others do my talking for me. Maajid Nawaz says it better than I can: And, also a much better frame for my own feelings:

My suggestion is that it's only confusing because you're seeing it through the lense of right/left. As soon as you unshackle from that and look at what is true, I hope you'll see there is no contradiction. I'll say it again, Islam can be practiced with peace and love, but so many around the world are not doing so. ISIS is a product of Islam, just as the Crusades were a product of Christianity. That doesn't mean that that is what either religion is inherently. What any idea or religion is, to the person who believes it, will vary. What matters is how they practice it and how widespread those interpretations are in practice. Today, in Islam, that practice is too often an interpretation that is dogmatic, regressive, and violent. That is the root of so much oppression and violence. If that doesn't help with the confusion, by all means send me a message. I'd more more than happy to explain better than I have to this point.

I think I've said all I can say, to be frank. I think that last comment illustrates best what my point is. There is an entire political side of the spectrum that won't even entertain the idea of something that should be at the heart of what they believe. And the left has gone so far down the wrong path it's going to take some serious shaking to get them back to reality. Yelling "bigot" is the last defense of someone whose entire thought process on the issue is so bankrupt that they'd rather level a charge like that than attempt introspection. Please, let it stay on the board, I can't be insulted by something I know not to be true. It stands as exactly all that is wrong in this conversation that needs to be fixed. And there are so, so many that will gain from it when we do. To your point ashbury, I agree, we may need to talk more about what peace and freedom look like. I welcome that conversation. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, the practice of Islam is miles and miles away from such a discussion. I hope, through reformation of their practices, we might some day have that talk. Again, there are so many that stand to gain from it.

Oh, I value both. I make no apology for feeling righteous about this. I became passionate about this through my work. Every time I think about this issue I think about a student who I will just call Is. Is discovered a talent and a passion for math and science with me and her mother broke down into tears in a parent teacher conference about how happy she was to see her daughter do something she feared was never possible in Turkey where they came from. And to hear the same about another girl that same year from a family from Somalia tore my heart out. So, yeah, I do this for Is and Sal and all the little girls and children in those areas of the world who'll never have that chance. They deserve it too. And they deserve it above any and all other bull **** and denial. Thing is, you can be on the right side of it to, you just need to accept that Islam can be both about peace and love and, right now, be the biggest force for oppression and violence in the world. The only thing stopping you is you.

That's a fair question, probably a network of things have contributed, but why get caught in those weeds? Did it matter why Christians in the 11th century rode off to slaughter Muslims? Maybe there was a host of reasons like poverty, education, racism, and other factors in that too. Does it change the central problem there either? I don't think so. You still had a bunch of zealots misuse their faith to go off terrorizing. They could do that, however, because they knew the fundamentalist, dogmatic approach to their faith would always keep them insulated from any real reprecussions. That didn't change until we fractured the hold Catholicism had on the Western world. Only then did the other things start to improve. So you're welcome to explore that, but just know you're worried about why the person with lung cancer has a cough. The cough isn't the problem, it'll get better if you can treat the lung cancer.

I am right because I stand first and foremost for peace and human decency on this. I don't feel that position ever has much chance of being wrong. It is false to suggest most practicing Muslims in the Middle East and Asia are peaceful and prizing freedom. They aren't. That's the problem. It's the widespread practice of Islam in these regions that is oppressive and violent. That is the problem. I will continue to bull over anyone that can't accept that fact, because falsehood in the name of something else (whatever reason you have for your denial of reality) has actual costs. There are little Muslim girls all over the Middle East and Asia that will never be educated, never allowed to be free, and many of whom will be killed with impunity, often by their own family. There are Christians, Kurds, Jews, and Muslims brutalized merely for practicing their faith another way. Those that speak their mind on blogs are butchered without justice. The practice of Islam, by many, many millions of people in this world needs to be reformed. That is the heart of the problem for this violence and oppression. I will always push back against any conservative that says Islam cannot be about peace. They're wrong. None have stepped in to say such a thing so far as I can tell. And I will always push back against anyone that tries to marginalize the scope of the problem with the false narrative that this is a tiny fraction of practicing Muslims. It is not. We need another reformation - join in. There are lots of people who stand to gain from it.

Islam, itself, is not inherently violent. Islam, in today's world, is being practiced in a brutal, violent, oppressive way by large numbers in large regions of the world. The practice is the problem. The same distinction was true about Christianity 1,000 years ago. We have hundreds of years of evidence to show that change is not just possible, but wonderfully rewarding for civilization when it happens, but also that the change is hard. If you don't want to be lumped into the tribe box, stop arguing like the box. I'm used to this sort of reaction, unfortunately, because I don't fit in either box. I get the same thing when I confront right-wingers on this issue, they just can't get off the stupid belief that Islam is inherently violent. You, on the other hand, just can't get off the belief that Islam isn't the problem. And for both sides it's comfortable that way - you get to sit in your little box, largely unchallenged, and feel rewarded. But you're both half right and somehow entirely wrong on the issue.

See, you should read my next response. I fear you, like so many, have come to associate the charge that "islam needs to be fixed" and put that through your tribe translator to come out in the voice of Donald Trump spouting some dumb **** you'd hear on Fox News. It's possible to believe Islam can be about peace and love and still feel that Islam is the problem. These are not mutually exclusive as much as your tribe (and the other tribe) seem to think. In fact, it's the very heart of the matter - you need to accept that both are true.

Maybe it bears saying so it helps some of you. There is a strong cry on the right that the problems in Islam are problems because of Islam. See, for me, I don't ever get into the argument of "what does the religion REALLY say?" because I find that exercise useless. A religion, just like a book, a poem, a painting, or anything else speaks a variety of things to each person. I don't believe Islam is inherently violent or peaceful any more or less than I believe that about Satanism, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster, or Christianity, or Vulcan. Believe whatever you want, however you want....but practice peace and decency. And Islam is the central force behind widespread practices that are neither. Just as Christianity once was. Just as many, many other belief systems have been. The practice of Islam has to be fixed. That's the core problem and it will take a reformation of practice to accomplish that.

I asked Psuedo directly, upthread, why it's so hard to accept it and his response was a question instead of an answer. I've had a couple dozen wonderful Muslim children and their families were every bit as wonderful. They were a joy to work with and as compassionate and generous as any families I've worked with. There is nothing, inherent, in Islam that prevents it from being about peace and love. And those here are almost all here practicing their faith in peace and love. The refugees that some want to bar from here also are trying to escape oppression and hate. I'd welcome them with open arms - they are the reformers. They are the ones that need our support. But the fact, the simple plain fact, is that in large areas of the world Islam does not stand for peace. It openly stands against peace, love, freedom, justice, equal rights, etc. We have to accept that. We have to work to change that. It's clear it can be changed, many Western Muslims (and some in other areas of the world) actively practice that. Hell, the Kurds are hated in their own space in the world (in part) for that reason! The belief that it is some tiny fraction of believers of Islam in Asia and the Middle East is demonstrably false. We have to get those believers out there that want to change their religious practices for the better the power and safety to do so. But right now they don't have that. (I just read a sad story about a woman in Pakistan who had the audacity to be flirty on the internet, strangled by her brother to save the familiy's honor) We don't do that by pretending that the issue is something it's not. The glue of all the problems there - poverty, hate, anti-feminism, honor killings, unequal rights, etc is Islam. We have to show them that they don't have to practice their faith in the way they are now. Can we differ in opinion on how to help them achieve that? Absolutely, I welcome any and all ideas. But to differ on the problem? To look facts in the face about the spread of this practice of the faith and deny them? To find excuses so we don't have to face the daunting challenge of confronting religion? No, I won't differ or compromise on that. It'll be hard. It's going to offend some. It's probably even going to be violent. But aren't we all better off for facing down those challenges in Christianity? That process probably still has more room to improve, but aren't we better for having forced those changes? I'd say so and I can't see how any rational person could argue otherwise. Civilization, science, feminism, secularism, all of these things were made possible by the defeat of oppressive Christianity. Islam requires the same - accept that and by all means bring your opinions to the table about how. Deny it and you're just plain wrong.

I don't consider peace and decency to others a point where compromise is appropriate.

Pseudo's arguments prioritize political correctness (or something, it's nebulous because his arguments have shifted all over the place depending upon which corner he thinks he can back into) over human decency. And this happens, on both sides, when we get accustomed to just lining up on the opposite side of whomever we generally disagree with. Conservatives do it and so do liberals. As soon as their natural enemy lines up on one side, logic and reason be damned, we gotta line up on the other. That's what this is. Liberals can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that they lined up on the wrong side of this issue because all they see is "conservatives think that, better get over on my side". (If you want a conservative example, the police issue is a wonderful one. Conservatives should, by definition, want LESS police power, not more. Yet....look at them take their side!) Islam IS the problem, but that doesn't mean that's where the conversation stops. We can openly debate how to solve that problem, but if you line up opposite of that you're just plain wrong. If you prioritize or excuse anything else over that, you're just plain wrong. And I won't compromise where it comes to something so starkly right and wrong. Islam stands, openly, in large chunks of the world, against human decency, education, secularism, justice, feminism, and a host of other things. There should be no compromise in opposing that. Just as there should be no compromise on that for any other force that does the same. Our civilization had a massive net win when we reformed Christianity from the brutal tyrant it was for centuries. There are millions (maybe billions) suffering under a similar yoke now. Again, I won't compromise on wanting to fix that. So, either get on board or get out of the way. I welcome, once you're on board, differences of opinion about how we make the world a better place by reforming Islam, but if you're distracting from the real problem then you aren't helping. And you damn sure aren't standing on the side of liberalism, freedom, and peace.

Because I'm asking only for them to submit to human decency aND peace. Same as anyone else.

I won't apologize for being on the side of a net win for humanity. I also won't apologize for being harsh with those that arent. We play enough "can't we both be right" games. That's easy for us to do. We aren't feminists, reformers, kurds, moderates, or children in a region that brutalizes them all to keep the status quo. If you can't get behind that I don't apologize for telling you that you're just plain wrong. Hurt feelings seem like a petty thing compared to the topic.

Global peace, human rights, and basic decency took a huge step forward the last time we fought to change a religion and won. I'm happy to be on that side again. If you're not, get the hell out of the way and let the rest of us work for a better world.

Again, change the practice/interpretation. It's funny to keep hearing this blamed on poverty and education. Take a wild guess what two of the positive consequences of the Christian reformation were? Islam is basically where Christianity was 1000 years ago from suppression of rights, women being treated as property, global terror (just called it crusades instead of jihad), economic oppression, direct influence in government, and the list goes on. When the religious strong hold fragmented and reform was forced....progress happened over time. Quit looking at the symptoms and look at the virus.