Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

@HenrySwanson - You’ve spent 10,987 words here and have spectacularly failed to clearly articulate your point.

To me, it's pretty basic but perhaps the delivery could have been improved. Let's see:

As far as I can tell, your talking points are:

• People should criticize entire religions, not individuals

Yes.

• No one ever criticizes Islam as a religion, ever

Not to a suitable degree, no.

(This is Buddha btw, please see the 200/201 and Cartoon Wars controversy in South Park)

• No one should criticize Christianity as a religion, just individuals

This is most definitely wrong, I'm not sure where I implied that. Everyone should be able to criticise every religion, Christianity included.

 

[Imari]

We don't know the true extent - it's a culturally sensitive problem.

So... you don't know the extent of the problem, but you know it's big enough to be outlawed?

Frankly, if a fifth of the world is in areas prone to cousin marriage it doesn't matter how "culturally sensitive" a matter it is. If it was a major problem it would be immediately and catastrophically obvious. The reality is that it's not ideal, but on the scale of damaging things that humans do to themselves and their children it barely even registers.

We don't have a massive integration problem with women over 36 and their offspring. Banning cousin marriage is a useful step towards better integration from a health and societal viewpoint.

There it is. It's not about cousin marriage or anything related to it. It's about trying to find a sneaky way to define a specific group of people so that you can have an excuse to exert control on their behaviour.

Yet everyone else are the authoritarian cultists. Huh.

If you want people to integrate, maybe demonstrate to them that they'll be accepted for who they are instead of coming up with laws to demonise them for things that don't matter. Attempting to strongarm people to marry into another culture to force "integration" is some colonialist cultural erasure bollocks. They're not the problem with integration, you are. And they're right to be scared of you.

Not to a suitable degree, no.

View attachment 1398364

The irony of using an image of an episode of South Park that was directly critical of certain aspects of Islam appears to be lost on you.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So... you don't know the extent of the problem, but you know it's big enough to be outlawed?

Frankly, if a fifth of the world is in areas prone to cousin marriage it doesn't matter how "culturally sensitive" a matter it is. If it was a major problem it would be immediately and catastrophically obvious. The reality is that it's not ideal, but on the scale of damaging things that humans do to themselves and their children it barely even registers.

We know it's a problem:

Effects of consanguinity in a cohort of subjects with certain genetic disorders in Qatar - PMC

Consanguineous marriages are common in the Middle East including the Gulf countries. The rate of consanguinity in Qatar is approximately 54%, which are mainly first cousins’ marriages. Previous studies showed that consanguinity increases the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Just like we know Tay-Sachs disease is a problem in certain Jewish communities:

Tay–Sachs disease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There it is. It's not about cousin marriage or anything related to it. It's about trying to find a sneaky way to define a specific group of people so that you can have an excuse to exert control on their behaviour.

It's about putting in policies to encourage integration.

Yet everyone else are the authoritarian cultists. Huh.

Exhibiting weird, cult-like behaviours.

If you want people to integrate, maybe demonstrate to them that they'll be accepted for who they are instead of coming up with laws to demonise them for things that don't matter. Attempting to strongarm people to marry into another culture to force "integration" is some colonialist cultural erasure bollocks. They're not the problem with integration, you are. And they're right to be scared of you.

Tried that since the 1940s. Hasn't worked.

Only looking at employment statistics you get:

Obviously, you have other markers of integration, and I'd encourage you to read about Bradford's history and current problems.

The irony of using an image of an episode of South Park that was directly critical of certain aspects of Islam appears to be lost on you.

Were they allowed to show Muhammad?
Was the ending speech allowed to be broadcast?
Are those episodes available now?

Like I said, you guys are a bit like the dinosaurs of the internet, which is depressing to see.

 

[Scaff]

@HenrySwanson - You’ve spent 10,987 words here and have spectacularly failed to clearly articulate your point. As far as I can tell, your talking points are:

• People should criticize entire religions, not individuals
• No one ever criticizes Islam as a religion, ever
• No one should criticize Christianity as a religion, just individuals
• Or something

You’re like a singer who repeats the chorus of your song a hundred times, but never manages to do it coherently even once.

You need to add in 'you can only judge a religion by its founder, not its history (that this favours Christianity is of course a total coincidence).

Were they allowed to show Muhammad?
Was the ending speech allowed to be broadcast?
Are those episodes available now?

Allowed? Yes.

Did the companies that supply these programmes chose not to show them? Yes, and in the US that's a 1st Amendment right. For someone who wants the UK to adopt it, you sure have a poor understanding of it.

Which is consistent (either by ignorance or design) of your posting on religion. You held up, in an earlier post, Christianity modernisation via the example of gay/lesbian Bishops. What you failed to mention is that one entire branch (and a sizable one at that) denounced this and refuses to do the same (or anything close). Nor did you mention that within the Anglican church, a full half of the church refused to agree with this and to this day refuses to acknowledge it. So at best around 25% of Christianity accepts this. It's a step in the right direction, but a long way from the gotcha you presented it as.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You need to add in 'you can only judge a religion by its founder, not its history (that this favours Christianity is of course a total coincidence).

Didn't say that.

Allowed? Yes.

Did the companies that supply these programmes chose not to show them? Yes, and in the US that's a 1st Amendment right. For someone who wants the UK to adopt it, you sure have a poor understanding of it.

Matt and Trey were allowed by Comedy Central? News to me.

 

[Scaff]

Didn't say that.

Oh you did, and got into quite the huff about it.

Matt and Trey were allowed by Comedy Central? News to me.

And you have once again failed to understand how the very ammendment you want to make law in England works.

You never specified allowed by who, so I went for the fullest answer, covering both the law and the businesses.

 

[McLaren]

Matt and Trey were allowed by Comedy Central? News to me.

That's the thing; they actually already did. "Super Best Friends" depicts Muhammad long before the controversial episodes, "200" & "201".

 

[CMGMS]

Hello, First of all, I want to say this. I am 42 years old and I am Muslim. And Islam is not something as everyone knows.



Priority means Islam: humanity and cooperation. It prioritizes the way people get along and live together with other people. If there are 5 families in a neighbourhood, if 4 families have food and 1 family does not have food, all meals are shared equally among 5 families. This is Islam.



When a person or animal falls to the ground, instead of looking at it, picking it up and helping it is Islam.



Respecting every language and religion is Islam. I am Muslim, but I have been to church many times. because they believe in God there. And it doesn't matter, it is Islam to respect people who do not believe in God or religion. Because even if he doesn't know it, it is Allah who created that person.



For example, I am married and I have children, we play games together. I am a healthcare character even in games. When I'm racing GT7, if someone is coming faster than me, I step aside. If that racer is faster than me, he is the one who has the right. Even preventing it is prohibited in Islam.



If you see a rich person and the money he earns is in the right ways, you should say, "May God give him more money, how well he deserves it." But if he is making money through bad ways, it still means may God show him the right way. This is Islam.



What is the place of Islam in the world now? It is a very, very, very misunderstood subject. Islam is not politics. Islam is not violence. Islam is not this visible event. Currently, violence and chaos are being used in the world under the name of Islam. This is so wrong. The whole world sees Islam as violence and conflict.



In Islam, violence only happens in war and only when enemy soldiers fight. Surrendered soldiers are welcomed as guests, not slaves. exists on this date. But that history no longer exists.



In Islam, women are held in high esteem. is not a slave. In Islam, women are shown as slaves who submit to men. But in true Islam, he is the source of joy and the real owner of the house. Women are very valuable in Islam. Animals are very valuable in Islam.



This is the real Islam. Islam is not a state or country. Islam is not a flag. Islam is the way of life. Everything that is said not to do in Islam is either unhealthy or bad. But 90% of the Islamic world does not live this way. It's such a shame and so sad.





**There may be a translation error in my article, I apologize.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh you did, and got into quite the huff about it.

Show me where I said you can "only" judge it by that. Are you referring to the picture I posted?

And you have once again failed to understand how the very ammendment you want to make law in England works.

You never specified allowed by who, so I went for the fullest answer, covering both the law and the businesses.

To be fair, that's not on me. If you wanted clarification, you could have asked for it.

That's the thing; they actually already did. "Super Best Friends" depicts Muhammad long before the controversial episodes, "200" & "201".

Exactly. Things have gotten worse.

Super Best Friends is banned now too.

Women are very valuable in Islam. Animals are very valuable in Islam.

=======

Guys, I'm gently trying to wake you up to what's happening in the Western World outside of here.

The highest-rated response to this story

Teenage guns for hire: Swedish gangs targeting Israeli interests

Gangs may be behind the recent attacks but Sweden believes Iran has had a hand in them.

www.bbc.co.uk

on that well-known Farage supporting forum that is Reddit Europe is:

Evolve or let the right/far-right takeover. Your choice.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Pretty sure people are offensive even with the laws, except we are more hamstrung than America. See the woman in Austria case we talked about earlier.

Why do you want to focus on Austria when they have blasphemy laws we don't? We live in the UK... you're afraid of what's happening in London. If you want to be more like America, that's one thing, but we're already not like Austria.

What is wrong with this:

At this point it's just a waste of electrons. You either think it's a real scenario or you don't, if you don't why mention it?

We don't have a massive integration problem with women over 36 and their offspring.

That wasn't the problem the suggestion was intended to solve.

Peaceful protest against Muhammad and the lunacy of a lot of Islam.

Fair enough. I think you'd be protesting the wrong thing, but say hello to Tommy ten names if you see him.

Would you want to live in that alternate 2024?

M'eh. From my point of view it wouldn't be that different. I don't go out of my way to offend people over their religion, but I don't want any legal protection for religion, I don't want it in any part of the state or the branches of government, and I don't want it in schools.

 

[HenrySwanson]

M'eh. From my point of view it wouldn't be that different. I don't go out of my way to offend people over their religion, but I don't want any legal protection for religion, I don't want it in any part of the state or the branches of government, and I don't want it in schools.

Then is there any point responding? I would hate to live in that 2024 timeline.

It's no wonder we are seeing this:

 

[Scaff]

Show me where I said you can "only" judge it by that. Are you referring to the picture I posted?

Was this not you...

And now religions that were founded by a single person, like Islam.

How many other founders preached as much violence and themselves took part in violence?

... now your were asked for clarification and all we got was memes and avoidance.

To be fair, that's not on me. If you wanted clarification, you could have asked for it

First is on you to be clear in your posts, not the reader.

Secondly you have a track record of avoidance when clarification is requested, so no, its on you. As I notice that again you've failed to actually address the point.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Was this not you...




... now your were asked for clarification and all we got was memes and avoidance.

That doesn't equal it being the "only" thing it can be judged by. If by "asked for clarification", I responded with:

Islam - What's your view on it?

Goodness, I'll only reply to this since it is quite evidentally pointless. Do you not see how that could be by it being the second-largest religion? You still even had to qualify it with: Pretty sure that all major religions do. :lol: Last chance with this very, very, unambiguous question...

www.gtplanet.net

First is on you to be clear in your posts, not the reader.

Secondly you have a track record of avoidance when clarification is requested, so no, its on you. As I notice that again you've failed to actually address the point.

The point is Comedy Central didn't allow it (they censored it), and they have not allowed it to be broadcast at all now.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I would have thought allowance in this context was clearly not talking about the state if I'm advocating for less restriction of speech. You have to remember that I've posted about this saga in multiple threads and what Matt and Trey's original version was.

 

[Scaff]

That doesn't equal it being the "only" thing it can be judged by. If by "asked for clarification", I responded with:

Islam - What's your view on it?

Goodness, I'll only reply to this since it is quite evidentally pointless. Do you not see how that could be by it being the second-largest religion? You still even had to qualify it with: Pretty sure that all major religions do. :lol: Last chance with this very, very, unambiguous question...

www.gtplanet.net

You replied with a single line and then edited the rest in, not that it actually clarified a great deal.

The point is Comedy Central didn't allow it (they censored it), and they have not allowed it to be broadcast at all now.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I would have thought allowance in this context was clearly not talking about the state if I'm advocating for less restriction of speech. You have to remember that I've posted about this saga in multiple threads and what Matt and Trey's original version was.

Are you of the opinion that Comedy Central don't have the right to do this?

As you still don't seem to understand how free speech works, as free speech is individuals and companies being able to chose what they do and don't say. You seem to be implying that CC should be compelled to show something, which is the exact opposite of free speech.

 

[Imari]

Just like we know Tay-Sachs disease is a problem in certain Jewish communities:

Tay–Sachs disease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cool. I haven't seen you advocating for banning Jews from intermarrying though, so I'm going to take this as more evidence that the "health benefits" are not even slightly the point of what you're trying to do. They're an excuse that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

You could be advocating for genetic testing for children born of unions that are within a certain level of familial closeness (as it what happens for many Ashkenazi couples), but you're not. Because you don't care about health, you care about breaking up communities that you see as "threatening" and forcing them to become like you.

I'm surprised you're not going all the way and advocating for arranged marriages for these migrants with suitable partners chosen for them by the state. In the name of integration, of course. If you want an integrated society, surely it's for the best that you make it happen as quickly and efficiently as possible. No?

You know, there was once a set of policies in Australia that I think you'd really like. It's colloquially referred to as the Stolen Generations, and the policies in place during that period really hit on a lot of the concerns that you have. Some might say that it showed that trying to separate people from their culture and history in order to make them more "white" was at best foolish. But you're a strong, independent thinker with a demonstrated ability to reason clearly, so I have no doubt that you'll understand how effective those policies were.

Were they allowed to show Muhammad?
Was the ending speech allowed to be broadcast?
Are those episodes available now?
View attachment 1398368
Like I said, you guys are a bit like the dinosaurs of the internet, which is depressing to see.

The point you made was that no one ever criticises Islam to a degree that you find suitable. Despite whatever restrictions and/or threats they may or may not have faced, the show was unquestionably critical of Islam. It continues to be so, regardless of how easy it is to access.

Arguably, the point that the show was trying to make is made substantially stronger by the meta-narrative of what went on around it. Which to my understanding was mostly about the network having concern around physical safety because there were people directly threatening violence, rather than any greater systemic policy of soft-balling Islamic criticism.

I think you can't distinguish between when you're arguing for religious critique and when you're arguing for ignoring threats of violence from extremists. It's all just one big muddled mess to you, which doesn't really give much of a sense that you've got a strong and well reasoned opinion on the matter.

You're just throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks in order to support an "opinion" which you made your mind up on long, long before anything resembling facts entered the picture.

Guys, I'm gently trying to wake you up to what's happening in the Western World outside of here.

Stuff is happening to the Western World, just not what you think it is.

Do you want to warn us all about the Great Replacement too, just to round things out? Tell us all about how much better things were when the UK was a dominant colonial power and all the darkies knew to keep their heads down, do as they were told and be thankful for the privilege of existing?

 

[Duke]

This is most definitely wrong, I'm not sure where I implied that. Everyone should be able to criticise every religion, Christianity included.

Then why do you get so bent when people in this thread bring up Christianity in comparison to Islam?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Is there any point responding? I would hate to live in that 2024 timeline.

It's no wonder we are seeing this:

• Thread about Islam
• Guy tells you his view, as a Muslim, of Islam
• Ignore critiquing that, let's go against the Westerner concerned about Islam and wonder why there's a massive pushback against the Left/Centre-Left happening all over the world.

 

[Scaff]

• Thread about Islam
• Guy tells you his view, as a Muslim, of Islam
• Ignore critiquing that, let's go against the Westerner concerned about Islam and wonder why there's a massive pushback against the Left/Centre-Left happening all over the world.

So now your telling us who we should and shouldn't reply to, would you like to provide us with the required narrative as well?

I don't recall you replying either, well aside from the quote-mined sarcastic dig.

Besides. I can spot a 'drive-by' post a mile off.

Oh, and if you think I'm somehow frightened to reply to such posts, then you have no idea of my posting history here.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Didn't say that either; these are observations.

Would those posting here follow @MatskiMonk's reply to the alternate 2024 timeline (I can see two liked it which is rather worrying but not surprising)?

Is there any point responding? I would hate to live in that 2024 timeline.

It's no wonder we are seeing this:

Say goodbye to these for a start:

@CMGMS, are men and women equal? Should they have equal rights and be treated the same? What about LGBT people?

 

[Scaff]

Avoidance and nonsense again, and it certainly didn't read as an unbiased observation.

Say goodbye to these for a start:

I've asked you before, but got no answer, let's try again.

What faith do you follow and what brought you to it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Avoidance and nonsense again, and it certainly didn't read as an unbiased observation.



I've asked you before, but got no answer, let's try again.

What faith do you follow and what brought you to it.

Sorry, where did I not answer before?

I'm agnostic and culturally Christian (aka Dawkins-like, but not atheist). How does that influence what others' response to my question should be? Would you really prefer to live in such an alternate timeline where such media didn't exist?

 

[Scaff]

I'm agnostic and culturally Christian (aka Dawkins-like, but not atheist).

OK.

How does that influence what others' response to my question should be?

it doesnt, I asked in regards to context for your posts.

Would you really prefer to live in such an alternate timeline where such media didn't exist?

I've never come close to saying anything of that nature, please explain why you you think I am.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Say goodbye to these for a start

Oh no.

5 films I've never seen but could easily watch on the interwebs even if they were banned... oh the humanity.

edit: Also, all of those films came out before Blasphemy laws in the UK were officially ended.

 

[Imari]

Say goodbye to these for a start:

View attachment 1398621

The Life of Brian was legit banned in a bunch of places. The world continued to turn.

Dogma actually hasn't been available for a long time due to weirdnesses with licensing and Harvey Weinstein being an asshole. You could try and find old stock or second hand DVDs or Blu-rays - not easy as it was never a hugely popular movie so there was never that many copies printed. You couldn't get it through legit streaming or download services at all. It's only this year that Kevin Smith actually got the rights back and is now planning on re-releasing it, I believe at some point in 2025.

But you didn't even notice that it has been exactly as unavailable as if it had been banned 15 years ago. You could pirate it, but you can pirate just about any banned media as well.

This is just more fear mongering and gesturing at imaginary nightmare scenarios as if we should be scared of these things that have already happened. Movies can and have gotten banned for stupid reasons before. It's mostly not a big deal because if you look up things like "video nasties" most of them are total garbage anyway.

Bans limit certain types of speech, but they also open up whole new avenues of ways to criticise the exact things they're supposed to be "protecting". So yeah, I'm with @MatskiMonk - I think it changes very little in the greater scheme of things and I think there's evidence to support that.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You could pirate it, but you can pirate just about any banned media as well.

It's immensely easy in the digital era, but even back in the 90s Reservoir Dogs was banned from sale in the UK originally, we still had it on LaserDisc where I worked.

FWIW I have Dogma on DVD somewhere, but I've never actually watched it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I've never come close to saying anything of that nature, please explain why you you think I am.

Excellent - common ground! I don't know why this board can be so contentious.

If you don't fancy that, surely you can see why I'm mocking Islam now, and why it is so dangerous to censor ourselves out of fear.

Posting this is easy:

Or say Jesus was talking weird when:

Oh no.

5 films I've never seen but could easily watch on the interwebs even if they were banned... oh the humanity.

edit: Also, all of those films came out before Blasphemy laws in the UK were officially ended.

They wouldn't have been made!

Jesus, this isn't a hard concept fellas.

How many things in the West mock religious founders? I showed you an opera with a lesbian Jesus having sex, Buddha snorting coke, and there's a whole South Park episode on how dumb Joseph Smith's early followers/origin story were/was....but those same creators can't even broadcast a picture of Muhammad anymore!!

Wake up! Films are only one source of media - what does it mean if we never offend the founder of the world's 2nd biggest religion? How does our culture and different religions evolve?

You saying you're indifferent to the situation speaks volumes, and I asked the question as we will never agree.

it doesnt, I asked in regards to context for your posts.

Separate question: Do you think only agnostics and atheists can criticise religions?

I've found my thing works for me but I wouldn't push it on others. It leaves me to take the good bits from religions (eg good and evil in Zoroastrianism, helping neighbours in Christianity, Zakat from Islam) without being pigeonholed.

The Life of Brian was legit banned in a bunch of places. The world continued to turn.

Dogma actually hasn't been available for a long time due to weirdnesses with licensing and Harvey Weinstein being an asshole. You could try and find old stock or second hand DVDs or Blu-rays - not easy as it was never a hugely popular movie so there was never that many copies printed. You couldn't get it through legit streaming or download services at all. It's only this year that Kevin Smith actually got the rights back and is now planning on re-releasing it, I believe at some point in 2025.

But you didn't even notice that it has been exactly as unavailable as if it had been banned 15 years ago. You could pirate it, but you can pirate just about any banned media as well.

This is just more fear mongering and gesturing at imaginary nightmare scenarios as if we should be scared of these things that have already happened. Movies can and have gotten banned for stupid reasons before. It's mostly not a big deal because if you look up things like "video nasties" most of them are total garbage anyway.

Bans limit certain types of speech, but they also open up whole new avenues of ways to criticise the exact things they're supposed to be "protecting". So yeah, I'm with @MatskiMonk - I think it changes very little in the greater scheme of things and I think there's evidence to support that.

Compare: The trajectory of mocking Jesus from Life of Brian to 2024 to the trajectory of mocking Muhammad from day dot to 2024.

Similarities/differences?

It's not fear-mongering if it's happening right now!

=====

I've got 2 questions:

Would you consider any of my posts "Islamophobic"?
Do you consider these views centrist, centre-right or right wing?

 

[MatskiMonk]

They wouldn't have been made!

Every piece of media that was subsequently banned for any reason still got made. The Satanic Verses exists!

Would you consider any of my posts "Islamophobic"?

"Islamophobia is the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general".

Your motivation isn't totally clear - despite claiming your mindset is liberated you're terrible at actually saying what you mean - but generally speaking, I'd say you are afraid of Islam, and somewhat hostile towards it. For what it's worth... me too! The difference is I hold all religions in the same contempt, you seem to just be focused on one.

Do you consider these views centrist, centre-right or right wing?

Simple left and right is irrelevant. You're clearly somewhat conservative in social views, though economically you seem to be left of centre.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Every piece of media that was subsequently banned for any reason still got made. The Satanic Verses exists!

That was written in 1988. Has it got better or worse for criticising/mocking "the prophet"?

"Islamophobia is the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general".

Your motivation isn't totally clear - despite claiming your mindset is liberated you're terrible at actually saying what you mean - but generally speaking, I'd say you are afraid of Islam, and somewhat hostile towards it. For what it's worth... me too! The difference is I hold all religions in the same contempt, you seem to just be focused on one.

Simple yes or no. According to you, are the points I'm making "Islamophobic"? It's very relevant as, depending on the definition agreed upon by our government, I could be subject to hate crime proceedings.

And it is disappointing that I haven't made a dent in your "I hold all religions in the same contempt" mentality. Are you seriously and with a straight face telling me you hold Mormonism in as much contempt as the others? Zoroastrianism? Bahai faith?

Simple left and right is irrelevant. You're clearly somewhat conservative in social views, though economically you seem to be left of centre.

Well that's something. The automatic labeling of those more critical to Islam than other religions as right-wing is obviously not the way forward as it's not correct. The cousin marriage banning thing is happening in that conservative hell-hole known as Scandinavia.

 

[Imari]

They wouldn't have been made!

Let's take this at face value. And so what? The world would be missing 5 movies. The world misses out on all sorts of movies because their creators can't afford to make them, or didn't know the right people, or because some studio exec didn't have enough coke that morning.

This would be unfortunate, but if the sum total of the consequences is "some movies wouldn't exist" then I'd really question how far I'd be willing to go in terms of making legislation to combat that. I certainly wouldn't be making rules about who can marry who for it.

Wake up! Films are only one source of media - what does it mean if we never offend the founder of the world's 2nd biggest religion? How does our culture and different religions evolve?

Are the people you're talking to not woke already?

But it doesn't mean that you can never offend Islam - as you've very capably demonstrated in your posts people do it all the time. It means that you have to choose what you say and when you say it.

If I work with a dude that is known to have anger issues and be very violent, then I'm going to be careful how I critique him. It sucks that I have to moderate my behaviour like that and I can try and help him get to a position where other people don't have to tiptoe around him, but the reality is that unless I've got something important and relevant to say then I probably avoid it.

That's just the reality of living in a society with other people. You choose how you engage with other people and groups based on what you predict their reactions to you will be. We all do this all the time. You have the paradox of tolerance in your signature, but apparently you still don't really understand it.

Christianity famously also used to be like this. In most places in the world, but not all, you can now fairly safely make comments about Christianity for no reason other than that they're funny. In some places you'll absolutely get the snot kicked out of you, but mostly the worst that will happen is you get glared at or told to **** off. With Islam you mostly can't say offensive things just for ***** and giggles because they're not there yet.

You rhetorically ask how religions evolve, and I'm curious as to what you think the answer actually is. By them being legislated into certain behaviours?

Compare: The trajectory of mocking Jesus from Life of Brian to 2024 to the trajectory of mocking Muhammad from day dot to 2024.

Similarities/differences?

You want to take the rules for Muhammad over the entire history of the religion (about 1500 years), and compare them to the rules for Jesus over just the last 45 years?

No cherry picking there. Why don't we also compare the amount of tantrums 10 year old Timmy has thrown in his entire life to the amount of tantrums 12 year old Sally has thrown in the last six months? That seems like a fair and reasonable comparison.

Frankly, Christianity only got somewhat reasonable about this stuff in the last hundred years or so, probably less. Considering that Islam is ~600 years younger, then maybe they've got some catching up to do? It sucks that the rest of us have to wait while they get past the "sticks and stones may break my bones" phase, but humans have been a terrible design from the very beginning. God put all the talent points Strength and Horny, and nothing into Intelligence or Empathy. We just have to deal with it.

Would you consider any of my posts "Islamophobic"?
Do you consider these views centrist, centre-right or right wing?

The posts or you? It's hard to tell with the posts because you refuse to properly justify your fears. If they're irrational, they're Islamophobic. If they're not, they're not.

Islam isn't on the political spectrum, but in general fear of the other is very strongly associated with right wing politics. Not because they're actually scared of Islam, but because the modern playbook for right wing politics is to drive action and engagement through fear. You know this, it's exactly what you're trying to do.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Let's take this at face value. And so what? The world would be missing 5 movies. The world misses out on all sorts of movies because their creators can't afford to make them, or didn't know the right people, or because some studio exec didn't have enough coke that morning.

This would be unfortunate, but if the sum total of the consequences is "some movies wouldn't exist" then I'd really question how far I'd be willing to go in terms of making legislation to combat that. I certainly wouldn't be making rules about who can marry who for it.

Religion doesn't evolve. Society doesn't evolve. Culture doesn't evolve. We regress/devolve. Islam "wins".

Let me ask you, what is the endgame of Islam?

Is this a reasonable summary of what's happened in the past century:

The Shift from Arab Nationalism to Iran's Rising Influence

The Middle East’s shift from Pan-Arabism to Pan-Islamism marked a major ideological change, driven by the failure of secular Arab unity. Iran, seizing on this disillusionment, emerged as a leader of Islamic unity, reshaping regional politics and taking a pivotal role in the Palestinian cause...

www.mandatebrief.com

Do we stand up for victims such as these

Diplomat: Qatar releases Dutch woman held after rape report

A Dutch woman held in Qatar for nearly three months after telling police she had been raped there was released on Monday after receiving a one-year suspended prison sentence, a Dutch diplomat said.

eu.usatoday.com

or shrug and go:

If I work with a dude that is known to have anger issues and be very violent, then I'm going to be careful how I critique him. It sucks that I have to moderate my behaviour like that and I can try and help him get to a position where other people don't have to tiptoe around him, but the reality is that unless I've got something important and relevant to say then I probably avoid it.

Are the people you're talking to not woke already?

Frankly, I'm seeing if people can change their ways through informed debate but I'm doubting they can. Your way of viewing the world is going the way of the dodo or dinosaur.

But it doesn't mean that you can never offend Islam - as you've very capably demonstrated in your posts people do it all the time. It means that you have to choose what you say and when you say it.

If I work with a dude that is known to have anger issues and be very violent, then I'm going to be careful how I critique him. It sucks that I have to moderate my behaviour like that and I can try and help him get to a position where other people don't have to tiptoe around him, but the reality is that unless I've got something important and relevant to say then I probably avoid it.

That's just the reality of living in a society with other people. You choose how you engage with other people and groups based on what you predict their reactions to you will be. We all do this all the time. You have the paradox of tolerance in your signature, but apparently you still don't really understand it.

Christianity famously also used to be like this. In most places in the world, but not all, you can now fairly safely make comments about Christianity for no reason other than that they're funny. In some places you'll absolutely get the snot kicked out of you, but mostly the worst that will happen is you get glared at or told to ** off. With Islam you mostly can't say offensive things just for *** and giggles because they're not there yet.

OK....so how do you suppose that will happen? Only from Muslims themselves?

You rhetorically ask how religions evolve, and I'm curious as to what you think the answer actually is. By them being legislated into certain behaviours?

The only legislation I'm advocating for is 1A and banning cousin marriages. How religions evolve is determined by how we, as a society and culture, treat them. You are suggesting we remove this selective pressure.

Essentially:



People are laughing at your views now, and voting against them by turning to the far-right.

You want to take the rules for Muhammad over the entire history of the religion (about 1500 years), and compare them to the rules for Jesus over just the last 45 years?

No cherry picking there. Why don't we also compare the amount of tantrums 10 year old Timmy has thrown in his entire life to the amount of tantrums 12 year old Sally has thrown in the last six months? That seems like a fair and reasonable comparison.

Frankly, Christianity only got somewhat reasonable about this stuff in the last hundred years or so, probably less. Considering that Islam is ~600 years younger, then maybe they've got some catching up to do? It sucks that the rest of us have to wait while they get past the "sticks and stones may break my bones" phase, but humans have been a terrible design from the very beginning. God put all the talent points Strength and Horny, and nothing into Intelligence or Empathy. We just have to deal with it.

I should have said "from point x" rather than day dot. E.g. compare how we treat each faith from the release of Life of Brian.

The posts or you? It's hard to tell with the posts because you refuse to properly justify your fears. If they're irrational, they're Islamophobic. If they're not, they're not.

In what world could they be considered irrational....

Should I be investigated for a hate crime?

Islam isn't on the political spectrum, but in general fear of the other is very strongly associated with right wing politics. Not because they're actually scared of Islam, but because the modern playbook for right wing politics is to drive action and engagement through fear. You know this, it's exactly what you're trying to do.

What is the centrist/centre-right view point on this topic then....