Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumFollow Bill Maher’s lead, not Donald Trump: There’s a way to critique ideology behind religion...
(headline cont'd)...without resorting to hate
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/13/follow_bill_mahers_lead_not_donald_trump_theres_a_way_to_critique_ideology_behind_religion_without_resorting_to_hate/
...Islam has long provoked little but confused, misleading commentary from well-meaning journalists, especially those eager to side with the oppressed and show solidarity with the downtrodden. In the West, the 1,400-year-old faith serves as a guiding light for its predominantly (nonwhite) adherents, who come from lands with histories of colonialism and often suffer discrimination from the various, mostly white European and North American societies in which they dwell. Not surprisingly, as a result, Islam has secured a place in the identity politics of our time. Criticize Islam, and you are perceived as attacking a minority community, which leaves you open to charges of racism.
More specifically, the charge is usually of Islamophobia, which feebleminded thinkers equate with racism, though Islam is neither a race nor an ethnicity, but a religion with devotees of all skin pigments on every continent. Criticize Islam its doctrines of jihad and martyrdom, its accordance of second-class status to women, for instance and you really are attacking an ideology. Yet our reigning state of politicized hysteria and linguistic decadence ensure the word, which is nothing but a shoddy semantic ruse inimical to free speech, lasting currency and even a sort of vogue. True freedom of speech, however, means being able to criticize the most contentious subject of all religion. There is, thus, nothing phobic about attacking Islam. We all are, or should be, perfectly free to attack Islam, or, conversely, to laud it. It is just one religion that is, ideology among many, and all religions are fair game for critics.
...
Those assaulting Muslims are engaging in criminal acts and should be prosecuted; those who express bigotry against Muslims as people deserve opprobrium. But those critiquing, however vociferously and irreverently, the illiberal doctrines of Islam and the bloodshed carried out in its name stand well within their First Amendment rights and merit no name-calling, the leveling of no spurious charges of Islamophobia.
More specifically, the charge is usually of Islamophobia, which feebleminded thinkers equate with racism, though Islam is neither a race nor an ethnicity, but a religion with devotees of all skin pigments on every continent. Criticize Islam its doctrines of jihad and martyrdom, its accordance of second-class status to women, for instance and you really are attacking an ideology. Yet our reigning state of politicized hysteria and linguistic decadence ensure the word, which is nothing but a shoddy semantic ruse inimical to free speech, lasting currency and even a sort of vogue. True freedom of speech, however, means being able to criticize the most contentious subject of all religion. There is, thus, nothing phobic about attacking Islam. We all are, or should be, perfectly free to attack Islam, or, conversely, to laud it. It is just one religion that is, ideology among many, and all religions are fair game for critics.
...
Those assaulting Muslims are engaging in criminal acts and should be prosecuted; those who express bigotry against Muslims as people deserve opprobrium. But those critiquing, however vociferously and irreverently, the illiberal doctrines of Islam and the bloodshed carried out in its name stand well within their First Amendment rights and merit no name-calling, the leveling of no spurious charges of Islamophobia.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 594 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Follow Bill Maher’s lead, not Donald Trump: There’s a way to critique ideology behind religion... (Original Post)
trotsky
Dec 2015
OP
The only time the article says 'minority', it's talking about 'in the West'
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2015
#3
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)1. Can we stop calling them a minority?
Once you reach a billion adherents, the word is dishonest.
rug
(82,333 posts)2. You're right.
It's the result of first world privilege.
But Jeffrey Tayler wrote it. It's to be expected.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,318 posts)3. The only time the article says 'minority', it's talking about 'in the West'
and "white European and North American societies".