I was referencing to SOTL's "Islam is an inherently violent religion because look at the Quran" thing two pages back. I'm not going to quote the entire post because it's huge and I don't disagree with all of it, and the selective quote feature mysteriously vanished from the forum.
Actually, I said look at the Quran AND what the Muslim scholars themselves say AND what the average Muslim in Islamic countries say, AND what ex-Muslims say.
Wouldn't that give you a reasonable insider picture, if Muslim scholars say it, and very large percentages (though not majorities, depending on the country) also publicly approve of it (at least as far as polling indicates)?
(Just to be clear, I'm using the word 'you' and 'we' multiple times below, but it's in the broader 'all of you in the discussion' sense, not targeted at 'you SeraphLance')
I think we both agree in defending minorities from persecution (including removal from planes just because he had a funny accent) - including ethnic middle-eastern minorities, and ideological Muslim minorities.
And we both probably agree with freedom of speech, the freedom of holding different ideas, and the defense of those freedoms.
Both of us likely defend the right of KKK to believe racist things, while simultaneously and vehemently disagreeing with the things they believe.
So why can we freely condemn KKK ideology, or Neo-nazi ideology, or Christian ideology, but we can't condemn Islamic ideology?
Where we differ - and it's super ironic that I'm a Christian telling liberals this - is that I think no ideology should be protected from critique (critique doesn't mean mocking or shouting into silence, but engaging in debate and discussion).
The USA view seems to be, from the average Democrat, "We can't question their religion because it's part of their culture!", with the average Republican saying, "We can't tolerate the individuals, because we don't know why!", both which are dumb.
Or, here, let an ex-Muslim (and anti-Christian) atheist liberal tell you:
"To me it remains a complete enigma how defending Islam is somehow a liberal position when Islam a deeply conservative ideology stands against most liberal norms and values. Isn’t the core essence of liberalism an attempt to balance the scales against bad ideologies that are harming and abusing human dignity. How can an unreformed Islam that looks to the 6th century with nostalgia, attempting to turn back the clock deserve protection? There’s a significant difference between standing up for the liberties of individual human beings, Muslim or otherwise and standing up in defense of the ideas they hold dear.
Criticizing Islam should be a liberal individual’s first and foremost goal. If you believe treating women as second class citizens, closer to slaves than peers, killing apostates, prohibiting gay rights, curtailment or elimination of individual liberty, child abuse, underage marriage FGM and other norms do not need to be challenged how can you in good conscience call yourself a liberal? How can you jeopardize your fundamental principles for something that directly threatens your norms and beliefs?
As someone who grew up in a Muslim environment you would expect my words to carry some weight with those that believe that experiences carry weight. Let’s start off with putting Al Qaeda and ISIS aside, since they’re usually regarded as too barbaric to be slotted into any liberal / civilized norms. Looking at the broader Muslim majority communities and countries. According to IHEU – International Humanists and Ethical Union’s annual Freedom of Thought report of 2015, 13 out of 13 countries that impose capital punishment for apostasy are Muslim majority countries. Pew Research Center’s data from 2012 also indicated that vast majority of Muslims countries have outlawed apostasy and blasphemy with punishments ranging from death to imprisonment of 10 years. There is no Muslim country that fully accepts the rights of ex-Muslims and anti-clerical dissidents. Most countries including liberal bastions like Turkey have prisoners of conscience imprisoned on a variety of charges related to their disbelief. Compare that with the status of disbelief in most countries in the West, when was the last heresy trial, how many men and women are imprisoned due to disbelief.
I’ve often been told that the point of defending Islam is defending victims of discrimination and racism. While that may be true in certain western contexts, globally in every single country Ex-Muslims like myself are under threat and routinely murdered. Compare that with the number of western countries that prescribe Capital punishment for being Muslim – exactly NONE. That doesn’t mean there isn’t anti-Muslimism racism and bigotry but that your position is far closer to radical right-wing than that of actual liberals. Neither are interested in breaking the hegemony of Islam in our lives. Neither is willing or desires to distinguish between individuals and ideology."
Why do the liberals give Islam as an ideology divine protection from critique?
Yes, Muslims individuals deserve freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination, just like Christians, Hindus, Bronies, and Athiests.
Yes, some of the rhetoric from Republican leaders (and the masses following them) is over the top, illogical, fear-mongering, and should be harshly shot down (ideally from within their own party, and from their own constituents, but since that's not happening, then from outside).
But the liberal response shouldn't be, 'Instead of fear mongering, let's not talk about it, and turn a blind eye, after all the Muslims around me are decent enough.'
But if some of the bad ideas are core to Islam itself, are we not allowed to address that because "Oh, most Muslims aren't like that!"?
Perhaps not even 1/4th of Muslims are like that. But polling indicates well over 250 million Muslims support killing those who renounce Islam. That's a huge problem.
(Note: I highly doubt those >250 million would actually cross the 'murder' line themselves, but their support of the murderers are a huge problem)
In the USA, if 1 in 6 Christians publicly supported those who kill people who renounce Christianity, and our government gave us legal protection or turned the blind eye, and our neighbors patted us on the back, that'd be absurdly crazy.
Earlier, someone said, "lets ignore that in many Western countries there are plenty of Muslims living lives which are near indisguisable from the Christians around them, have done for many years now, nicely integrated, allow their daughters the same freedoms as others...."
But when the above ex-Muslim says, "globally in every single country Ex-Muslims like myself are under threat and routinely murdered.", by globally, he includes the USA.
Ofcourse it's far less of a problem in the USA because our laws make it illegal (meaning that there are actually consequences, instead of pats on the back like in many Muslim-majority countries), because there are so few Muslims here, and (for the upteenth time) because far from every Muslim individual is like that.
Even so, it's still around 25 honor killings a year here (it's hard to measure, mostly because the government doesn't want to be seen as politically-incorrect and records it as domestic violence or regular homicides).
Are we individuals who think for ourselves, or does our beliefs come top-down from our respective parties?
I for one agree with some things the liberals say, and almost none of what the Republican party leaders say (especially this election cycle), but hold strongly to my own views that more often then not line up with the 'conservative'-labeled groups. In some areas (like regulating big business and helping the poor get out of poverty) I agree with some Democrats. In some areas (like reduced government debt and reducing big government) I agree with some Republicans (though I don't think 'big states' are the correct route either), and I have other ideas (like copyright reform, and other views) that don't too fit well in either of the two big parties.
If we agree almost 100% with one party, and 0% with the other party, are we really thinking for ourselves, or are we just mainlining the opinions from the media and from our party overlords?
If liberal don't agree with corporations being treated as humans (and when it comes to stopping companies from giving election donations, I'm with you on that one!), why should ideologies get treated as humans and have special protection? And why only some ideologies but not others?
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to ideas. Individuals must be protected. Freedom of ideas must be protected. But freedom from critique is a bad path to walk down, in my opinion.
