Worried about FFI

[CuteCoot]

And welcome back to humanity.

Your "humanity" has become so hateful that no thanks, I'll stay where I am.

[Brendalee]

Here and there on these fora there are references to Muslims being deranged or mentally incapacitated and even of being defective by "inbreeding". Jeez, if you can't see the implied racism and bigotry in that, you've become blind to these things.

Hello Cute Coot, Mighty Builder of Strawmen!

Kindly cite where those you have labelled "bigots" on this thread have referred to Muslims being 'deranged or mentally incapacitated and even of being defective by "inbreeding".' This is not only an invented strawman which has nothing to do with the subject at hand; it is deliberate obfuscation. You are trying to change the subject.

Oh, and wait! How is it that YOUR definition of bigot has suddenly changed from those who can find no good thing to say about ISLAM into those who refer to MUSLIMS as blah, blah.? How did THAT happen? Where I come from this is known as "moving the goal post". You have no foundation for your silly charge that opposing a nasty ideology is bigotry, and so you attempt to move yourself to safer ground.

Now, as you (repeatedly and sanctimoniously) keep alleging that you hold people innocent until proven guilty (Well except Christians, those who expose you in forums, and others you may dislike and decide to label for some unproven reason or other), I will again ask you to bring forth the quote from me which caused you to move from THREATENING to conclude I am a bigot to your assertion that you suddenly reached that conclusion. Prove my "guilt".

You play the same threat game with Ioshka: Oooh, don't attack my posts or I might move quickly from accusing you of being blind to bigotry to actually BEING a bigot. It is a laughable game and you are utterly transparent. Anyone who attacks Islam too strongly OR goes after your mealy-mouthed deceptive and contradictory posts is a BIGOT to you.

Anti-Islam BIGOTRY you tell us is to BLAME for Muslims killing innocents. Ann Barnhardt burns a Quran on camera and spreads it all over the internet; As she burns it she is saying things like "Eeevil!" and "Go back to hell where you came from". You go to that thread and try to redeem your credibility (presuming that members unaware of your contradictory game are gullible enough) by "applauding" her. When I point out what seems obvious: That she has nothing good to say about Islam and I ask you why you applaud her instead of calling her a bigot ....you reply that there is "insufficient evidence" and repeat your sanctimonious lying drivel about how you hold people to be innocent until they are proven guilty!


Oh, and about Wilders: He is not here to defend himself. And I think he ALREADY is scheduled to face a judge so you can put your robes away. English is not his first language so I think you need to consider ALL possible meanings for what he said, and furthermore NOT just discard his comments about "ordinary" Muslims and thus take his statement out of context.

Then you can look at his intent. Then you can ponder why the word "inhuman" is so often applied and whether its use can be ever justified. THEN you can explain why figures of speech somehow should always be taken literally. Example: Ann Barnhardt repeatedly refers to her favourite (lol!) politician as "Jackass". By doing so she "dehumanises" him. She implies he is not a human being. But you "applaud" her. (She certainly has nothing good to say about Islam (THAT'S an understatement!) but you do not label her a bigot but instead "applaud" her; and when challenged you make the nonsensical limp claim that there is insufficient evidence, even though she utterly and completely fits your OWN definition and even though you label others as "bigots" with far less excuse. Lol!)

[IoshkaFutz]

And welcome back to humanity.

Your "humanity" has become so hateful that no thanks, I'll stay where I am.

You didn't get your priorities straight. You're more worried about mis-speech than actual murder. The supposed verbal slip-ups of a man who'd have his throat slit and an aya pinned to his chest than the tens of thousands who would rejoice and the millions who would remain silent - and their effect on civilization.

New Age Nihilism (NAH) tends to mess up thought processes concerning priorities. Yours are entirely screwed up.

Wilders had the guts to tell the Muslims: "Hey enough of this sons of pigs and apes stuff" and now you'd have us worry about his bigotry!

This is locura en la cabeza. Frivolous! It's like some crank calling the fire department to save her house and then complaining that they forgot to wipe their feet on the doormat before entering.

Bad case of NAH!

[Sten]

Kindly cite where those you have labelled "bigots" on this thread have referred to Muslims being 'deranged or mentally incapacitated and even of being defective by "inbreeding".' This is not only an invented strawman which has nothing to do with the subject at hand; it is deliberate obfuscation. You are trying to change the subject.

No, she is telling the truth. I have seen increased instances of people claiming that Muslims were inbred, were mentally deficient, retarded, etc. I can't be bothered searching through the forum to quote people, but I and a few other members have noticed. It's pretty ugly.

Coot's definition of bigotry was flawed, but her arguments are otherwise pretty sound. Pretending that there is no problem with bigotry in the anti-Islamic movement is just burying your head in the sand. There is a big difference between condemning an ideology, and generalizing all the followers of that ideology. Coot said that Wilders and Spencer are potential rallying points for bigots, and I agree with this. It's a pity you responded with a strawman, to whit: "Got it. Criticising Islam is actually anti-Muslim hatred, but we are just too stupid to understand." That isn't what she was saying, I would have thought this was pretty obvious.

Whether or not Wilders wants it, racist bigots will rally behind him because his message overlaps their own in places, particularly the issue of immigration. He should be very wary of this and watch his words accordingly.

Anti-Islam BIGOTRY you tell us is to BLAME for Muslims killing innocents.

Now who's making strawmen? Where exactly did Coot say this?

[skynightblaze]

Coot's definition of bigotry was flawed, but her arguments are otherwise pretty sound.

Coot also said that Brendalee is a bigot. Do you agree with her statement?

[Brendalee]

Hullo sten!

If you will read the discussion we have been having, you will see that people who hate Muslims and call them names has NOT been the topic of this discussion.
The topic has been Cute Coot's rather curious view that opposing this particular ideology (Islam) makes one a bigot, an Islamophobic, etc. What has been under discussion are the things Cute Coot has asserted in THIS thread. Thus, throwing out rubbish about the fact that there are bigots who hate Muslims and call them names is a STRAWMAN and an attempt to move the goalpost away from her own definition of "bigot" and give herself firmer ground.

Here is one:

As anti-Islam bigotry grows, so also the anti-Western Islamic backlash will grow. The Christians in Muslim countries will suffer most as they are hugely vulnerable. But so also will Buddhists - and Jews and animists and people from any other religion besides Islam - suffer.

Bigots like yourself, Brendalee, will not suffer. You are safe there behind your keyboard, safe in your anonymity, safe also I'm guessing in some comfortable Western enclave, surrounded by a tiny minority of Muslims in your local population.

Do you see the sly not-so-subtle inference in the second paragraph? I am apparently one of these "anti-Islamic" bigots who will CAUSE innocent people to get killed by Muslims because of my "anti-Islam" criticisms.

Now, I would like to point out that there is a world of difference between being anti-ISLAM and anti-MUSLIM. The first is what we have been discussing; The second is NOT. I would further like to point out that MOST of the people who are familiar with Spenser, Ali Sina and Geert Wilders belong to the FIRST category. Certainly some belong to the second, but Cute Coot is specific: "anti-ISLAM" and makes an equally specific addition: "anti-ISLAM bigotry"

As for her "argument", she has declined to defend the many generalised blanket statements she has made. She is at a loss even to justify her labelling of me or her not so subtle threat to so label Ioshka. She has been quick with her "bigot" label and slow (nonexistant) with her justification. And she has been self-contradictory; making it obvious, at least to me, that her tendency to label others as "bigots" in this thread is in direct proportion to her anger over having her views challenged.

I have always believed you to be sincere in your concerns, sten. I'm sorry but I cannot believe the same of Cute Coot.

[Sten]

Coot's definition of bigotry was flawed, but her arguments are otherwise pretty sound.

Coot also said that Brendalee is a bigot. Do you agree with her statement?

Not from what I've read so far, but then I haven't read every post of hers. Based on what I've read I would say no.

Do you see the sly not-so-subtle inference in the second paragraph? I am apparently one of these "anti-Islamic" bigots who will CAUSE innocent people to get killed by Muslims because of my "anti-Islam" criticisms.

Is that what she was saying? I took it as a statement that the increased anti-western mentality is a symptom of the anti-Islamic movement, which isn't untrue. People like Terry Jones give Islamists more excuses to claim that everyone hates Muslims. That's not to say that the anti-Islamic movement isn't justified (the non-racist proportion of it anyway), but we should be expecting increased resistance to it. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, to put it crudely.

Now, I would like to point out that there is a world of difference between being anti-ISLAM and anti-MUSLIM. The first is what we have been discussing; The second is NOT. I would further like to point out that MOST of the people who are familiar with Spenser, Ali Sina and Geert Wilders belong to the FIRST category. Certainly some belong to the second, but Cute Coot is specific: "anti-ISLAM" and makes an equally specific addition: "anti-ISLAM bigotry"

As for her "argument", she has declined to defend the many generalised blanket statements she has made. She is at a loss even to justify her labelling of me or her not so subtle threat to so label Ioshka. She has been quick with her "bigot" label and slow (nonexistant) with her justification. And she has been self-contradictory; making it obvious, at least to me, that her tendency to label others as "bigots" in this thread is in direct proportion to her anger over having her views challenged.

Perhaps. But then again she could just be using the terms "Islam" and "Muslims" interchangably.

I have always believed you to be sincere in your concerns, sten. I'm sorry but I cannot believe the same of Cute Coot.

That's nice of you to say. I think Cutecoot doesn't express herself very well at times, but there is no question that she is opposed to the ideology of Islam. Based on what I have read of her posts I think that she is worried about the increased racist element to the anti-Islam backlash, the people who just use it as a way of hating on all Middle Eastern people. I identify with Coot's concerns about there being an element of bigotry to many people's posts, but on this I could be wrong and you could be right. In future I will refrain from sticking my oar in.

[Brendalee]

Fair enough. And I will likewise refrain from answering the arguments you put forth in your post. You do more for Cute Coot than she does for herself.

[IoshkaFutz]

Brendalee is a bigot. Now I'm worried about Brendalee because she is no longer Brendalee, who writes real well, is solid, rational, fair, tough and even funny, now she's been bundled with the Ku Klux Klan...

But wait... what did she say? What the hell did she say to be labeled Bigot (and in today's world that label is like a searing cattle brand)?

Out with it! Otherwise, we have good reason to be worried about FFI falling into the hands of "patty-cake patty-cake" ...

I asked about 4 times for a quote, a link. And in return got threatened to be called a bigot as well.

Let's see Brendalee's big nasty sin, which if found would probably be that of speaking with her heart in her hand... Like watching her daughter being called stuff by people hellbent on taking over the country she loves.

Clear the air.

Bigots like yourself, Brendalee, will not suffer.

This comment reveals a way of thinking. It implies responsibility for the insane acts of violence on others by people who can't control themselves. Suggesting that people can't / shouldn't control themselves (from sawing off heads!) is to my way of thinking calling them animals, lesser beings, untermensch. It means holding them to abysmal standards.

That's where you'll find the real bigotry... except it's perfumed with la-di-da.

[CuteCoot]

Coot's definition of bigotry was flawed ...

I never claimed to have a perfect definition. I doubt there is one. I called mine a "working definition".

There is a problem in the anti-Islam world and you do recognise it. I don't like the word "Islamophobe" as it has been abused in order to silence anyone who even remotely criticises Islam or Muslims. I don't like the word "racist" since the Islamic world is multi-racial even though I do acknowledge that there is often an element of anti-Arab venom in much of the anti-Islam rhetoric. I ended up going for "bigot" even though it's not perfect and my working definition is my way of discriminating between the two types of people: those who have correctly identified aspects of Islam that are of grave concern and those who have ceased to bother to see any merit at all in what is a highly complex phenomenon.

Islam is ideology, yes, but it is also a faith tradition. It is a major world religion. And it was also the foundation of a vast empire and civilisation, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. It remains the foundational element of the worldview of that vast area now referred to as "the Islamic world". It is the backbone of the identity of all of those people, that 1.6 billion people.

Daniel Pipes makes the useful distinction between Islam and Islamism and I know that hardly anyone on FFI is interested in retaining that distinction. For everyone here that is still posting it seems that Islam=Islamism. And once that equation is affirmed, religious bigotry can be blithely denied because ... Islam is ONLY an ideology and NOT a faith tradition or religion.

But Sten, you tell me this: What is your own definition of bigotry in this context? How do you tell the difference?

[IoshkaFutz]

Islam is ideology, yes, but it is also a faith tradition. It is a major world religion. And it was also the foundation of a vast empire and civilisation, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia.


Was such neutral information in doubt?

Brendalee is an important FFI forummer and on a thread called Worried about FFI, she was accused of being a bigot.

Now we know that Islam has a history and a population base and that Daniel Pipes is able to make dubious mental distinctions which say more about him than about Islam... a faith tradition that is extremely violent.

From Ibn Warraq

Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects -- the life of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any manner.

About Ibn Warraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq#Seclusion

Prior to 2007, Ibn Warraq refused to show his face in public. This was due to fears for his personal safety and also due to his desire to travel to see his family in Pakistan without being denied access to Muslim countries. His face was blacked out on the ISIS website. More recently, he has decided to show his face openly and take part in public debates. However, his presence normally requires extensive policing.

You can call it a Faith Tradition to murder apostates... or to be "a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects"

The problem is that the Faith Tradition has come in vast numbers to people who have other traditions.

Probably superior, certainly more sophisticated and complex.

As Canonical Islam calls those others "infidels" and has many many injunctions about how to treat them...

You'll get people who become upset.

And then there will be those like yourself who call them bigots because they are lacking in awe towards a faith tradition, a major world religion and foundation of a vast empire and civilisation, stretching from Morocco to Indonesia.

It might have to do with the stretching business.

[Cassie]

To me, Islam is Islamism. There was never this distinction until people like Daniel Pipes made it up. I think it is a PC sop to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush. You know - the peaceful, moderate, Muslims versus the vicious Muslim terrorists. To me, it is all shades of grey - the more Islamic a person the more of a terrorist is his or her propensity. To claim that there are millions of Muslims who wouldn't even hurt a fly stands in the face of reality where these same peaceful Muslims (who wouldn't even hurt a fly) would have no qualms in persecuting or discriminating against their non-Muslim neighbors. There is no Muslim country where non-Muslims are equal in law and life opportunities as Muslims. Why is that? It is not peaceful to persecute non-Muslims. It is not peaceful to exact Jizyah or discriminate against non-Muslims. The Egyptian Copts, Assyrian Christians, the Sephardic Jews, the Indonesian Chinese Christians and Buddists etc. certainly aren't living in peace but under Islamic oppression. To me, Muslims are peaceful only when they live in non-Muslim countries where we don't allow them to exhibit their nonsense.

[Sten]

But Sten, you tell me this: What is your own definition of bigotry in this context? How do you tell the difference?

My definition of bigotry is any negative generalization or prejudice of a diverse group of people. I don't think I would describe it as having nothing good to say about a belief system.

[CuteCoot]

My definition of bigotry is any negative generalization or prejudice of a diverse group of people. I don't think I would describe it as having nothing good to say about a belief system.

From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

From thefreedictionary.com:
bigotry: obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

The first definition refers only to what is in people's minds. The second definition includes the people themselves. I think that what you've described is closer to "racism" and, in an odd but real way, it does apply in this context. A lot of the anti-Islam language does group all forms of Islam into one and all Muslims into one category. OK, it's not "race" in a genetic sense. But was "race" ever really a genetic thing?

Now, I am sympathetic to your definition and I am disturbed when I see evidence of it but I do think that a blanket categorisation of all aspects of Islam as evil, though it doesn't directly refer to Muslims, is nevertheless bigotry. OK, not necessarily racism, but it is bigotry. And bigotry, we know, whether it is specifically expressed in a racist form or not, is a very dangerous viewpoint. Not so bad if one person is a bigot. No harm in that. But when bigotry takes over a whole group of people that's when it becomes socially dangerous.

Thank you for answering my question straightforwardly. Now I would beg a little more of your patience here. What is your own view of Wilders' "slip-up"? Do you buy Futz's notion that he meant that deconverting would allow Muslims to be welcomed into the class of people with humanist values, not to the human race as such? Do you think that I'm reading too much into this?

It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

[Sten]

The first definition refers only to what is in people's minds. The second definition includes the people themselves. I think that what you've described is closer to "racism" and, in an odd but real way, it does apply in this context. A lot of the anti-Islam language does group all forms of Islam into one and all Muslims into one category. OK, it's not "race" in a genetic sense. But was "race" ever really a genetic thing?

It looks like the definition of bigotry is fairly subjective, since dictionaries are usually consistent in their definitions. I would absolutely define race as genetic, it covers aspects of your identity that you are unable to change, such as your ancestry and skin colour. Muslims would like us to believe that religion and race are interchangable, but this is a cheap tactic designed to silence people who criticize them. They do it because unlike in Islamic countries, they can't arrest their detractors and force them to stop talking, so they use accusations of hatred to humiliate them into silence instead.

Now, I am sympathetic to your definition and I am disturbed when I see evidence of it but I do think that a blanket categorisation of all aspects of Islam as evil, though it doesn't directly refer to Muslims, is nevertheless bigotry. OK, not necessarily racism, but it is bigotry. And bigotry, we know, whether it is specifically expressed in a racist form or not, is a very dangerous viewpoint. Not so bad if one person is a bigot. No harm in that. But when bigotry takes over a whole group of people that's when it becomes socially dangerous.

Now that you've put me on the spot, I can't really think of anything about Islam that is good or beneficial. Nothing that it teaches is original or deep, it's quite a superficial philosophy which is based on fear of retribution from an all-powerful and jealous patriarch, rather than a search for enlightenment or understanding. The book that they hold up as perfect isn't particularly engaging or well-written, and the man they worship as their prophet is not exactly a paragon of kindness or compassion. Their family unit is based on obedience, religious piety, and honour, over loyalty and love.

There really isn't anything good in the Islamic religion that you can't find elsewhere, in more human-friendly philosophies.

Thank you for answering my question straightforwardly. Now I would beg a little more of your patience here. What is your own view of Wilders' "slip-up"? Do you buy Futz's notion that he meant that deconverting would allow Muslims to be welcomed into the class of people with humanist values, not to the human race as such? Do you think that I'm reading too much into this?

I don't know, I haven't really made up my mind about Wilders yet. It could have been a slip, it could have been something lost in translation, or he could really be dehumanizing Muslims. Based on what he's said in the past I don't think he was meaning that Muslims are non-human, but it's possible he did mean that. If he really did mean it then of course he is a bigot, Muslims are as human as anyone else, trying to disown people we don't agree with doesn't help anything. There's no difference between us and them besides the memes our brains operate on.

If he didn't mean it, then he should watch what he says more closely. He should be more aware that he runs the risk of becoming an icon for fascists and racists.

[Cassie]

From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I have a stubborn and complete intolerance of the belief system of Nazis. Am I a bigot?

From thefreedictionary.com:
bigotry: obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

I have an obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance of the Aztec religion of human sacrifice. Am I a bigot?

[Sten]

From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I have a stubborn and complete intolerance of the belief system of Nazis. Am I a bigot?

From thefreedictionary.com:
bigotry: obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

I have an obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance of the Aztec religion of human sacrifice. Am I a bigot?

The Nazis and Aztecs would probably say yes.

[CuteCoot]

To me, Islam is Islamism. There was never this distinction until people like Daniel Pipes made it up. I think it is a PC sop to avoid tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

There was never any need for a distinction before 9/11 (or, to my mind, pre the Rushdie affair). If you read any mainstream text relating to religion, Islam is just one of the world religions. Yes, it is supremacist and very assertively so. Pipes himself does acknowledge that much. But to some extent every religion is supremacist, every belief system believes it is the best and will ultimately or eventually reign supreme. The new atheists are quite clear in their vision of a future utopia in which there will no longer be any religions. This very vision is a religious - or prophetic - vision. Dawkins is just the latest religious prophet of humankind. Jesus was pure and perfect because he had not sinned and was not born under the shadow of original sin. Dawkins is pure and perfect because he is guided solely by reason and science and not by any religious superstition. It's just the same thing.

Now, if you read Karen Armstrong or happen across her on the TV, you will - like me - be instantly nauseated by her unctuous deference to the holiness that is Islam, that is the Koran, that is Mohammad. Yuk! However, this woman is an avid scholar of religions. She is widely read and well researched. Because she is a generalist she may not have delved into Islam - or any other particular religion - sufficiently for some. But she is knowledgeable and she writes very readable and accessible books. I've come to accept that she is not 100% wrong. She refuses to look clear and straight at the dark side of Islam but when she sees religious truth and innovation and even holiness in Islam she is not 100% wrong.

My problem is that I hold a few Muslim friends too dearly. I respect what is in their hearts and minds. They are good Muslims, not good people despite being Muslims.

There are many aspects of Islam that are totally unacceptable to me. The silencing of dissidents and of women's voices in particular is disgusting to me. (That's why I love female dissidents like Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and also outspoken non-Muslim critics like this latest Ann Barnhardt.)

However, I do understand in what way Islam is justified to see itself as supreme. That doesn't make it supreme, of course, but it renders it at least partly reasonable for Muslims to view it like that. Unless you can see even a tiny glimmer of this you will see all Muslims as irrational, perhaps as deranged, and - much like we so often see schizophrenics - as potentially dangerous.

Each one of us is potentially violent. That is so evident to me. Are you and your friends an exception to this?

[Cassie]

Of course I'm inherently violent but that does not make me evil as I am only violent to those who would do me harm. Wasn't it Orwell who wrote that, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf"? Another quote, perhaps misattributed to Orwell, says, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I also do not excuse Islam's idea of supremacy as being merely an equivalent of that of other religions. It would be a tu quoque for a start. Secondly, and more importantly, Islam's idea of supremacy is different in that it, alone among the major religions, espouses a concept of forcible conversion and discrimination against disbelievers. I don't care what anyone believes, basically. Just don't encroach on my beliefs. Islam encroaches on my beliefs - for that, I will condemn it.

I have written about the grey area of condemning Islam and Muslims - what is Islam without Muslims? Who bears responsibility? Do we hate when we condemn? Too often, people mistake condemnation for hatred. Too often, people mistake opposition for hatred. I voice my opposition to islam and, by extension Muslims who propagate and espouse Islam, because Islam encroaches on my freedom, my personal space. If Islam, and Muslims, did not and do not put themselves in my consciousness, I couldn't care less about them. But I do have the right, my constitutional right, to condemn and oppose any ideology and its practitioners that wish to do me harm. That, to me, is not bigotry, for I do not condemn and oppose Islam and Muslims for anything other than self-preservation and that of my friends and family, my country, and my civilization.

[skynightblaze]

From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

From thefreedictionary.com:
bigotry: obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions

According to the dictionary we are bigots but I am asking you a counter question . What is wrong in being a bigot about something that promotes rape, murder ,paedophilia looting or hating non believers???? Should we promote such ideologies or beliefs because of the fear we would be called bigots?

We have 2 choices. Be a bigot(as per the dictionary) and oppose this ideology of hate /belief or allow crimes to be committed. I think I will go with the choice 1 even if it meant me being labeled a bigot.