Why "religion is not a race" is only half true

[Giliell]

Now, this could as well go under "religion", but I thought it more appropriate here. Move if you feel different.
In the current discussion about islam, muslims and comunity centres and mosques, one side repeatedly accuses the other to be racists while the other side replies with the statement above.

Of course, religion is not a race. I can choose my religion, I could probably convert to all of the major ones in a week (except for Hinduism which does link ethnicity to religion), while nothing in the world will make my a native American.

But if you look closely at all "anti-islam" movements, in every initiative against the building of a mosque or comunity centre or stuff like that, the promoters, the activists are no-one else but the good old racists who always hated those people for being "darkies" and "foreigners". Only now they can hide behind this "religion is not a race" and pass off as reasonable critics who are only trying to conserve western values and stand up for human rights when they are actually nothing but anti-democratic bigots who would like to do away with freedom, democracy and human rights as quickly as they could.
And what's even worse, people like Hitchens or Thunderfoot (of whom I still hope that he's not a racist ) fail to see that and team up with those people they would have stood up against 10 years ago.

Sometimes citizens, democratic parties and organisations see through their cheap propaganda, denouncing them for what they are: bigots, racists and nazis.

So, what do you think: Is the fact that most muslims are "dark skinned" imigrants or in the USA also African Americans an issue in the controversy?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I suppose I can safely concur with most of this, although I think the better case-study is probably the Jews.

But yes, probably the first and most important thing taught in my college's Arab-Israeli Conflict (of which there is some disagreement regarding the title) was that the words, 'Muslim,' 'Arab,' 'Israeli,' and 'Jew,' each describe, all at once, a religion, a race, and an cultural group... and none of these things.

My sense of these things has been further developed by interactions with atheistic Hindus, who are, "Hindu because my parents are Hindu," and for no other reason. In fact I cannot seem to find a single person who believes that Rama engaged in an epic battle over Sita with the demonic, 10-headed Ravana.

And of course, there are other examples. In what sense is not Shinto merely a synonym for Japanese? Zoroastrians tend to be Parsi, no? Have you ever encountered a devout follower of Tengri who was not a Central Asian nomad?

So, what do you think: Is the fact that most muslims are "dark skinned" imigrants or in the USA also African Americans an issue in the controversy?

I'm not entirely sure if this latter point is true. Admittedly where I'm from there was recently a mass-immigration from Somalia, but I don't think I will be held to task for saying that Somalis are visually quite distinct from the descendants of West African slaves... barring that, I think most Muslims in the states are either of Indian/Pakistani origin. There are also, of course, a number of refugees, including Iranians, Afghanis, Albanians, and so on.

Whereas, and perhaps it is just the part of the country that I am from, but I don't think I have ever encountered an African American Muslim.

 

[Nautyskin]

But if you look closely at all "anti-islam" movements, in every initiative against the building of a mosque or comunity centre or stuff like that, the promoters, the activists are no-one else but the good old racists who always hated those people for being "darkies" and "foreigners".

Wow. What a statement.

Do you actually have anything to back this up?

 

[lrkun]

Now, this could as well go under "religion", but I thought it more appropriate here. Move if you feel different.
In the current discussion about islam, muslims and comunity centres and mosques, one side repeatedly accuses the other to be racists while the other side replies with the statement above.

Of course, religion is not a race. I can choose my religion, I could probably convert to all of the major ones in a week (except for Hinduism which does link ethnicity to religion), while nothing in the world will make my a native American.

But if you look closely at all "anti-islam" movements, in every initiative against the building of a mosque or comunity centre or stuff like that, the promoters, the activists are no-one else but the good old racists who always hated those people for being "darkies" and "foreigners". Only now they can hide behind this "religion is not a race" and pass off as reasonable critics who are only trying to conserve western values and stand up for human rights when they are actually nothing but anti-democratic bigots who would like to do away with freedom, democracy and human rights as quickly as they could.
And what's even worse, people like Hitchens or Thunderfoot (of whom I still hope that he's not a racist ) fail to see that and team up with those people they would have stood up against 10 years ago.

Sometimes citizens, democratic parties and organisations see through their cheap propaganda, denouncing them for what they are: bigots, racists and nazis.

So, what do you think: Is the fact that most muslims are "dark skinned" imigrants or in the USA also African Americans an issue in the controversy?

I think, some people see the islamic faith as a violent religion, because of the recent events that happened to third persons who know nothing about it. Ex. 9/11, muslim extremist, news about women being punished in a terrible manner, and others.

If I were one of the alleged racist/anti-muslim, I will fear that the islamic doctrine will hurt my country, therefore I must do something to limit or stop such from happening.

However, I am objective, therefore, I will experiment on the matter and not judge because of those scenarios. I will allow Park 51 to be build, however, it has to be subjected under the rule of law. If there is no basis under the law which prohibits such, then so be it, let it be build. Then time will tell with regard to its effect towards the populace.

My personal view on the matter is that people ought to be allowed to exercise their creed, as long as it is not detrimental to society. Therefore, these religion will have to change in order to conform with the US constitution.

On the issue of racism, I don't think that is the correct way to look at it, maybe the correct term is creedism (if there is such a term). Because I hate your ideology or belief, you are not welcome here.

 

[Giliell]

But if you look closely at all "anti-islam" movements, in every initiative against the building of a mosque or comunity centre or stuff like that, the promoters, the activists are no-one else but the good old racists who always hated those people for being "darkies" and "foreigners".

Wow. What a statement.

Do you actually have anything to back this up?

Surely, how good is your German?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCrgerbewegung_pro_K%C3%B6ln

But I'll give you a quick overview: The Initiative "Pro Kà¶ln" (pro Cologne) and its state-wide organisation "Pro NRW" (Pro North-Rhine Westfalia) are right wing neo-fascist organisations who blame imigrants for everything bad. They formed as an initiative against the building of a central mosque in Cologne.
Wherever there is such an initiative against a mosque, it is lead by known members of the extreme right, at least here in Germany.
And if I look at the Park 51 debate, it doesn't seem to be much different in the States.
Now they can use the ordinary fellows concerns about "Islamification" to spread their racist, xenophobe propaganda and they can hide behind those concerns.

@Anachronus
I think a lot of this comes down to the phenomene which, for us western atheists is being " a cultural christian", as Dawkins puts it. We're deeply rooted in a christian culture. For myself, I think I love christmas more than the pope.

As for the African Americans, I didn't want to suggest that they were in the majority muslim, but some quite prominent ones are.

@Irkun
IThe point I'm trying to make is that quite a lot of those "anti-islamists" hated those people long before 9-11 and such because they were imigrants and foreigners and dark-skinned. Only that now they've switched their line to "anti-islam" and claim that they're not racist

 

[Anachronous Rex]

We should be careful here because this strikes me as yet another of those 'all squares are rectangles, but not every rectangle is a square' things:

1) I am quite sure that the most bigoted and racist white Americans are likewise none-too-fond of Islam (except for maybe racist Turks and Albanians, who I consider white.)

2) Then there are those who are just ethnocentric with regards to culture, bigoted against the 'strangeness' of other peoples' ideals but otherwise indifferent to color. I suspect this group has the largest constituency in the US. No one is afraid of an Islamic professor, dressed in corduroy, who speaks in a fun British accent, with a touch of Hindi, and who does lectures on chemistry. Put that same man in a turban (which would probably make him a Sikh, but these people are none-too-smart), remove the British accent, dress him in street clothes or maybe some manner of robe, and have him lay off shaving for a week or two, and I suspect the reaction will be different. That is to say, these people are afraid of a stereotype, of which they have little actual knowledge. This is also the group you would expect to be afraid of black people, but mostly just if they wear baggy clothes, and have strange idiom. When questioned, they will tell you that they're not racist because they have x friend who is of another race (but probably has near-identical mannerisms.)

3) Finally there are those who are not ostensibly racist or bigoted at all, but who oppose Islam on various ideological grounds. Contrasted with the second group, these have no objection to foreign culture and are often themselves pluralists, but take a stand against those ideas which they consider to be unacceptable in modern civil society.

The problem is that there is some apparent overlap between these three groups. The categories themselves don't make it easy either; religion has dirty little tendrils that work their way into culture and render it difficult to separate the two. Cultures regrettably tend to develop along racial lines.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We should be careful here because this strikes me as yet another of those 'all squares are rectangles, but not every rectangle is a square' things:

1) I am quite sure that the most bigoted and racist white Americans are likewise none-too-fond of Islam (except for maybe racist Turks and Albanians, who I consider white.)

2) Then there are those who are just ethnocentric with regards to culture, bigoted against the 'strangeness' of other peoples' ideals but otherwise indifferent to color. I suspect this group has the largest constituency in the US. No one is afraid of an Islamic professor, dressed in corduroy, who speaks in a fun British accent, with a touch of Hindi, and who does lectures on chemistry. Put that same man in a turban (which would probably make him a Sikh, but these people are none-too-smart), remove the British accent, dress him in street clothes or maybe some manner of robe, and have him lay off shaving for a week or two, and I suspect the reaction will be different. That is to say, these people are afraid of a stereotype, of which they have little actual knowledge. This is also the group you would expect to be afraid of black people, but mostly just if they wear baggy clothes, and have strange idiom. When questioned, they will tell you that they're not racist because they have x friend who is of another race (but probably has near-identical mannerisms.)

3) Finally there are those who are not ostensibly racist or bigoted at all, but who oppose Islam on various ideological grounds. Contrasted with the second group, these have no objection to foreign culture and are often themselves pluralists, but take a stand against those ideas which they consider to be unacceptable in modern civil society.

The problem is that there is some apparent overlap between these three groups. The categories themselves don't make it easy either; religion has dirty little tendrils that work their way into culture and render it difficult to separate the two. Cultures regrettably tend to develop along racial lines.

The racist part is the most interesting bit in a way, because it shows how the same asshole bigots can shift their targets to more socially acceptable ones, and keep the same mental sickness and personality defects going strong. "Muslim" is turning into the new "n*gger" in America. Because it is a religion first, the bigots can use that as cover for what it is really about in their twisted little heads. It isn't a coincidence that there's a huge overlap between racists and homophobes either, because ultimately it is all about having someone to hate, to fill some hole in their personality where the rest of us keep our compassion and respect. Even when it isn't racist, it is still bigotry.

As to your #3, I'd say that the point of distinction between that and the first two is the difference between being against a religion, and being against people who are associated with that religion. I'm firmly against religion, but I know that the majority of religious people are decent folks. I'm against Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope and his rapist-protecting buddies, but I'm not against my neighbors who attend the occasional Mass. I'm against Islam and the leaders who call for violence and hatred and the subjugation of women, but I'm not against the girl in my class who wears a fancy veil to class or my buddy from the Marines who always had to get his half of the pizza without pepperoni.

I think part of the problem is also that the sort of differentiation you did there is rarely done in the case of Muslims. They are often painted as either extremists and terrorists or "moderates"(usually in scare quotes like so) who are still alien and backwards and possibly sleeper agents.

 

[Giliell]

but I'm not against the girl in my class who wears a fancy veil to class or my buddy from the Marines who always had to get his half of the pizza without pepperoni.

What, wait, their religion is against pepperoni?
:shock:
Forgive me if I'm just ignorant

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What, wait, their religion is against pepperoni?
:shock:
Forgive me if I'm just ignorant

Some Muslims and Jews cite religious reasons to avoid eating pork, and pepperoni usually has pork in it.

 

[Giliell]

What, wait, their religion is against pepperoni?
:shock:
Forgive me if I'm just ignorant

Some Muslims and Jews cite religious reasons to avoid eating pork, and pepperoni usually has pork in it.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Usually pickled, sometimes filled with cheese?
I always considered it to belong to the vegetarian part of my diet :?

 

[Prolescum]

Pepperoni is a spicy pork sausage. :lol:

 

[quantumfireball2099]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperoni

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Are we talking about the same thing?

Usually pickled, sometimes filled with cheese?
I always considered it to belong to the vegetarian part of my diet :?

You're thinking "peperoni" with 2 Ps. I'm talking "pepperoni", or I guess salamino piccante. This stuff:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperoni

How the hell did we get the same picture? :lol:

 

[quantumfireball2099]

@ Joe

It looked the yummiest!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

OK, enough with the overprocessed meat!

The point is that bigots claim that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, when the reality is that there are probably a half-billion of them who are as lazy with their religious beliefs as most Christians and Jews, who are culturally tied to a faith but barely practice and don't really care. Anyone who is claiming that Islam is some sort of existential threat to the West is some combination of bed-wetting coward, deeply ignorant, and/or trying to justify racism/bigotry of some sort.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Anyone who is claiming that Islam is some sort of existential threat to the West is some combination of bed-wetting coward, deeply ignorant, and/or trying to justify racism/bigotry of some sort.

Now that, I think, is going too far. Whether or not Islam is an existential threat to the West, not everyone who thinks of it as such is ignorant, cowardly, or bigoted.

 

[lrkun]

Anyone who is claiming that Islam is some sort of existential threat to the West is some combination of bed-wetting coward, deeply ignorant, and/or trying to justify racism/bigotry of some sort.

Now that, I think, is going too far. Whether or not Islam is an existential threat to the West, not everyone who thinks of it as such is ignorant, cowardly, or bigoted.

I agree with Rex in this issue. Because it can be observed that some islams, through their speech and actions, show some really nasty things. How do you expect us to defend them, if they, by themselves make it difficult for us to do so?

I for one, would rather have the issue settled, where islams are welcome to the world. I do believe, this to be true. However, evidence: extremism, their treatment of women, or their holy war. Really makes me think otherwise. I can't fathom within my imagination how to help boost their name in a positive way. How can you help a drowning man who keeps throwing the rope back at you?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Now that, I think, is going too far. Whether or not Islam is an existential threat to the West, not everyone who thinks of it as such is ignorant, cowardly, or bigoted.

I don't think ignorance can't be benign, but it is still wrong. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and someone has presented the case that the couple of hundred Al Qaeda fighters in caves in Afghanistan can destroy whole countries. Maybe somewhere there is proof that the threat is somehow as great or greater than the threat from the Soviet Union... that not coincidentally also turned out to be blown out of proportion... without standing armies, sophisticated weaponry, or the capacity to get significant numbers of fighters anywhere where they can do real existential damage.

I'm not talking about "terrorists can blow up a building"... of course they can. The idea that they can end Western civilization is a fucking joke.

 

[lrkun]

I don't think ignorance can't be benign, but it is still wrong. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and someone has presented the case that the couple of hundred Al Qaeda fighters in caves in Afghanistan can destroy whole countries.

Maybe somewhere there is proof that the threat is somehow as great or greater than the threat from the Soviet Union... that not coincidentally also turned out to be blown out of proportion... without standing armies, sophisticated weaponry, or the capacity to get significant numbers of fighters anywhere where they can do real existential damage.

I'm not talking about "terrorists can blow up a building"... of course they can. The idea that they can end Western civilization is a fucking joke.

You have a point, however, I'm not much of a positive thinker, hehe. I do fear muslims, and maybe that is why I am biased against them. Viewing the whole thing in an objective way, then sure, it is best to give them a chance and let the experiment begin. Provided that they leave their religion's extreme world view behind, then I approve. To be accurate, as long as they are in accord with the US Constitution, and obey the laws of the land.

And maybe, the US mindset can help adjust and better the Muslim way of thinking.