Is Religious Bigotry off the table?

[Michael]

We should keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between hating Bigoted Ideology versus, hating a person who holds Bigoted Ideology dear to their hearts. While the temptation is to hate the person, IMO, we should pity that sort of person. IOW, it's possible to hate a person's Bigoted Ideology while thinking little (or next to nothing) of the person who spreads such Ideology. Think of it like this: Would you really hate a 10 year old who hates "blacks" because she was taught bigotry? No. Of course not. You hate what she was taught to think. Well, just because someone is 25 or 45 etc... doesn't make it much different in my book. The only difference may be the tact you take in an attempt to modify, and maybe even eliminate, the bigotry.


Imagine considering your own daughter unclean. Now, just consider the idea of "unclean people". Where does this ideology come from? Ever hear the words nigger, heathen, kafir? Should we stand ideally by when a White person refuses to shake the hand of a Black person just because that person is Black? Shouldn't we do something? Say something? Challenge it? Are we so politically correct we now have to accept any and all ill forms of behavior? What about the woman who refused to shake my hand because I'm Kafir?

Something to think about.

Ever wonder how a religious Caste system could develop? Think about these ideas: nigger, heathen, kafir.... Labeling people "unclean" is a gross misuse of the very small amount of intellectual ability available to said bigot (more than often theobots). But, what's really interesting is think about whom did/do these ideas of unclean people originate? Why are they tolerated by society? How do they spread? What types of people take a stand against them? Can you stop the spread? If so then how? There's nothing wrong with taking an intellectual stand against White Supremacy. If that feels like Bigotry towards WASP Skin Heads, well, it's not. It's against the ideology that non-Whites are a less "race" of people. Hell, I almost find it comical. A White Bigot whining about being singled out for their bigotry?

How asinine is that!?

There's nothing wrong with taking an intellectual stand against Religious Supremacy and Religious Bigotry. If that itself feels like Bigotry towards Religious Bigots, well, it's not. It's against their bigoted ideology.

 

[lightgigantic]

We should keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between hating Bigoted Ideology versus, hating a person who holds Bigoted Ideology dear to their hearts. While the temptation is to hate the person, IMO, we should pity that sort of person. IOW, it's possible to hate a person's Bigoted Ideology while thinking little (or next to nothing) of the person who spreads such Ideology. Think of it like this: Would you really hate a 10 year old who hates "blacks" because she was taught bigotry? No. Of course not. You hate what she was taught to think. Well, just because someone is 25 or 45 etc... doesn't make it much different in my book. The only difference may be the tact you take in an attempt to modify, and maybe even eliminate, the bigotry.


Imagine considering your own daughter unclean. Now, just consider the idea of "unclean people". Where does this ideology come from? Ever hear the words nigger, heathen, kafir? Should we stand ideally by when a White person refuses to shake the hand of a Black person just because that person is Black? Shouldn't we do something? Say something? Challenge it? Are we so politically correct we now have to accept any and all ill forms of behavior? What about the woman who refused to shake my hand because I'm Kafir?

Something to think about.

Ever wonder how a religious Caste system could develop? Think about these ideas: nigger, heathen, kafir.... Labeling people "unclean" is a gross misuse of the very small amount of intellectual ability available to said bigot (more than often theobots). But, what's really interesting is think about whom did/do these ideas of unclean people originate? Why are they tolerated by society? How do they spread? What types of people take a stand against them? Can you stop the spread? If so then how? There's nothing wrong with taking an intellectual stand against White Supremacy. If that feels like Bigotry towards WASP Skin Heads, well, it's not. It's against the ideology that non-Whites are a less "race" of people. Hell, I almost find it comical. A White Bigot whining about being singled out for their bigotry?

How asinine is that!?

There's nothing wrong with taking an intellectual stand against Religious Supremacy and Religious Bigotry. If that itself feels like Bigotry towards Religious Bigots, well, it's not. It's against their bigoted ideology.

Maybe you should try not drinking beer when posting an OP.

I mean if you spent about a tenth of the oratory finesse of this OP on the thread you just got canned for, we wouldn't be discussing this now

 

[yaracuy]

Bigoted Ideology



............................................



Can you define what is bigoted Ideology.

I think every human is a bigot with respect to someone whom he does not like or feel comfortable

 

[GeoffP]

It's apt enough to say that certain kinds of religious bigotry are off the table, and that others are not, according to the biases of the reviewer. Such is politics.

 

[S.A.M.]

There's nothing wrong with taking an intellectual stand against Religious Supremacy and Religious Bigotry

Agreed. As Javed Akhtar says: an extremist is a poacher, he takes what you are unwilling to give.

But your crusade is really bizarre, you want people to remove atheist from the dictionary because it offends you that atheism requires the presence of theism to be identified. That is a very silly stance

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Would you say one is a Bigot because He does not think anyone can do whatever they want. You will usualy find People who Cry Bigot actualy follow a set of Man made laws. is one a Bigot for following the Law of the land. Or would one be a Bigot because he does not agree witht he law of the land and he agrees with maybe a scripture law. one of God.


Peace.

 

[GeoffP]

Would you say one is a Bigot because He does not think anyone can do whatever they want. You will usualy find People who Cry Bigot actualy follow a set of Man made laws.

I would call one a bigot who, from a position of power or the desire of same, wishes to see enforced arbitrary laws over other communities, which he or she probably secretly despises. There are other definitions, of course.

The word has got a lot of over-use, much of it unjustified, over the last several days on here.

 

[Bells]

Imagine considering your own daughter unclean.

But that was not what he said, was it?

Now, just consider the idea of "unclean people". Where does this ideology come from?

You mean the unwashed masses?

Ever hear the words nigger, heathen, kafir?

I have been called "nigger" by white people in the country of my birth and I have been called a heathen by my very own relatives.

Should we stand ideally by when a White person refuses to shake the hand of a Black person just because that person is Black? Shouldn't we do something? Say something? Challenge it?

Do what?

Beat the individual?

Berate the individual?

Or would you label all whites as being obviously racist and backwards and uneducated?

You challenge the individual(s). You do not lump the whole into the one because of the actions of the few. For example, lets look at the child sex abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests and the protection given to them by the Church. Does that mean all Catholics are child abusers because they belong to that particular religion?

Do you see the difference?

Are we so politically correct we now have to accept any and all ill forms of behavior?

Not at all. I think we should be educated enough to not place everyone into one basket because of the actions of the few.

What was done was not "doing something". What it amounted to was attacking the whole and blaming the whole for the actions of the few.. What it clearly amounted to was using a poor woman and her plight to attack the whole for one's own pleasure.

I think the question could be asked if we are so politically correct that bashing the whole for the actions of the few and abusing the whole for the actions of the few is now deemed acceptable depending on who is being bashed and abused.

What about the woman who refused to shake my hand because I'm Kafir?

Is that the fault of all Muslims? Is that something you should be demanding an explanation for from all Muslims? Or her as the individual?

Do you think she represents all Muslims when she refuses to shake your hand?

Have you ever considered she did not want to shake your hand because she just didn't like you? Or maybe she saw you pick between your butt cheeks minutes before? Or maybe she is just rude. Her actions towards you are hers alone. If you want to know about the woman who refused to shake your hand because you are a Kafir, you should ask her, not demand an explanation from other Muslims as it has nothing to do with them.

Something to think about.

No. Not really.

Ever wonder how a religious Caste system could develop?

By lumping all into one and denigrating them and classifying them as one for the actions of the few?

There was a recent discussion amongst the moderators about this issue. And it began to become clear that we are developing a religious caste system where one was deemed as the outcast.

Think about these ideas: nigger, heathen, kafir.... Labeling people "unclean" is a gross misuse of the very small amount of intellectual ability available to said bigot (more than often theobots).

And saying that all who belong to a particular religion are somehow at fault or are expected to provide an explanation or apologise for things that are outside of their own control and to which they are not connected to at all is grossly unfair.

But, what's really interesting is think about whom did/do these ideas of unclean people originate?

Probably in the same place that one could say that the residents of a whole country were "an intolerant shit hole brimming with ignorant illiterate used douche bags is not an opinion, but an observable fact"...

Why are they tolerated by society?

Who is they? The individual? Or the whole group?

How do they spread?

In many ways. Using forums to post divisive threads and get the crowd who shares one's sentiment about the group is one way to go about it.

What types of people take a stand against them?

Those who do take an effective stand are usually the people who can tell the difference between the individual and the whole.. ie being of a particular religion does not mean that one is like the individual(s) who have committed the crime. Nor does it mean that they share the same ideology or beliefs and understanding.

Can you stop the spread?

Of course you can.

But you need to go after the individual. Not brand the whole as being to blame and expect and demand they virtually beg for forgiveness and have to explain for something they had nothing to do with.

Doing that only makes things worse.

As we have seen time and again.

 

[GeoffP]

You challenge the individual(s). You do not lump the whole into the one because of the actions of the few. For example, lets look at the child sex abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests and the protection given to them by the Church. Does that mean all Catholics are child abusers because they belong to that particular religion?

Well, actually you did accuse me of being generally evil once because I was Catholic, via group association. :shrug:

I don't agree with Michael when he says "Muslims", as I don't agree with the usual round of other atheists who say "Christians" do this or that. (I have a bit more problem with the use of "Jews" generally - as you may have noticed - because of the long history behind antisemitism, and because it's a road we've been down WRT that people.) It's incorrect to generalize in such a manner, but I generally let it go. I don't think Michael means anything more behind it than anyone else when he so uses it.

Clarifications: clearly, there's no connection between "the unwashed masses" and the concept of naij. I think we should drop that kind of thing. The one is a gauche description of the proletariat and the other a religious conceptualization of a form of (false) sin of commission.

There was also mention of how to stop it, and you mentioned going after the individual: ...actually, I think this is a misconception, because the meme Michael's talking about is a general one, much ingrained in the thinking of the dispensatory caste of religious thinkers (since I have no better phrase, regrettably) in Islam. It's a common meme and it's not uncommon. We could ascribe it to, say, Wahhabism, and that would be much of it, but I think the most infamous demonstration of the concept of naij comes from a prominent Shi'ite representative. I think his critique would be better directed against the institution, mind - much as most critiques of Catholics et al are directed against their institution, although the blistering of evangelicals I believe tends to be more on the individual, and perhaps this suits with the psyche of their organization - but it's difficult to do so in that the institutions - as often suggested on here - simply rarely exist. Many Muslims on the forum often describe such organization at the mosque and no more - this is partially false, in that separate legal systems do exist in Islam, but which in turn actually have relatively few differences on the topic of the unbeliever or the apostate, which is the delimiter of my personal concern and some of my societal concern.

Anyway: the point is that it's difficult to phrase gripes against the apparatus of such a system; it takes pains to do so. So I disagree with Michael's loose language at times (sorry Mike), but not with his objectives: there are ongoing social problems in Islamic legality, and these problems have root in both the religious class and the social proletariat: and in the oligarchy of bureaucracy.

So in short; yes, one can confine one's attacks to the individual, but at the same time if many such individuals or many such incidents occur with respect to a given religion or sect of a given religion or faith, one should ask whether or not the institution and their social inertia (or direction) has something to do with it. Easy parallel: Catholicism and child abuse by priests. Although I will add here that while one could argue that such crimes be left up to the individual perpetrator and the legal system (arguably the best choice in such a case), what if the system itself promotes such humanitarian crimes, such as in the example of the concept of naij, huddud laws and the intricate association of Islam with the state from Morocco to Malaysia.

(And if we're going to oppose the blasting of a given nation, then we should similarly refrain from doing so on any geographic grounds, including within the United States and so forth. Nationality is still one of the free hunting grounds of griping, however, so I'm not sure that such a strategy would be successful.)

 

[Bells]

Clarifications: clearly, there's no connection between "the unwashed masses" and the concept of naij. I think we should drop that kind of thing. The one is a gauche description of the proletariat and the other a religious conceptualization of a form of (false) sin of commission.

It exists in many religions. It exists in your religion as well.. Sinners cannot take communion for example, without confession.. ie. they are deemed unclean.

There was also mention of how to stop it, and you mentioned going after the individual: ...actually, I think this is a misconception, because the meme Michael's talking about is a general one, much ingrained in the thinking of the dispensatory caste of religious thinkers (since I have no better phrase, regrettably) in Islam.

It is ingrained in most religions.

Not just Islam.

I'll give you an example. Make of it what you wish. A few years ago, two Rabbis wrote and published a book, titled 'Torat Hamelech' or 'The Kings Torah', which discussed many things about their religious teachings, and included a chapter detailing when it was acceptable to kill a gentile. It was based on the religious teachings from the Torah and other religious rules that govern them. In short, it was a religious study. The comments which sparked the most outrage were quite brutal:

"In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created…When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed…The [Din Rodef] dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly…Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer…Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”…

(Source)
​

The very notion of killing babies who are not 'us' (by their outlook) is apparently acceptable, while to the greater majority, it should have been viewed with repugnance. However, here is where things became disturbing. Many in Israel protested and complained about the book and correctly stated that it incited hatred and violence against non-Jews. The police finally decided to act and issued arrest warrants for the author(s) and also for the very senior Rabbis who endorsed the book and helped write it or participated in its creation (writing forewards, etc). One would assume the majority would have applauded..

The Religious Zionist movement has issued a blanket condemnation of the arrest of Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira over the book he authored. Dozens of rabbis, Knesset members, and National Religious public figures have signed a petition against the rabbi’s arrest, claiming that he expressed “a halachic opinion.”

The petition also came out against the manner in which he was arrested - in the middle of the night by dozens of policemen.

Beit El Rabbi Shlomo Aviner told Ynet on Monday that the book “Torat Hamelech” is a “halachic-academic work, a pedagogical work,” and, therefore, there is no justification to send its author to prison.

According to Rabbi Aviner, the “‘religious laws governing the killing of a non-Jew’ outlined in the book are a legitimate stance and must be addressed via clarification of halachic sources and nothing else.”

-----------------------------------------

(Source)
​

And this..

A convention “in honor of the Torah and its independence” will be taking place in Jerusalem on Wednesday, following the summoning of two prominent national-religious rabbis for police questioning over their endorsement of a controversial Halacha book.

Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba and Rabbi Ya’acov Yosef, son of Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, publicly refused the police summons last Monday, saying in a statement that “the attempt to prevent the rabbis of Israel from expressing their opinion, the opinion of the Torah, through intimidation and threats is a most severe act and will not succeed.”

The two rabbis had written a haskama (rabbinical endorsement) to Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira’s book Torat Hamelech, which discusses the rules of war and states that in certain situations, non-Jews can be killed.

The book has attracted a firestorm of controversy since being published in 2009. Last month, police questioned Shapira over the text and raided his yeshiva, Od Yosef Hai, in Yitzhar to confiscate copies.

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsberg of Kfar Chabad, who endorsed Torat Hamelech as well, was also summoned for questioning, during which he explained to the officers the halachic reasoning behind his support for the book.

An ad in this weekend’s religious newspapers signed by some 50 primarily nationalreligious rabbis – including senior ones such as Conversion Authority head Rabbi Haim Druckman and Ramat Gan Chief Rabbi Ya’acov Ariel – called on rabbis to convene at the capital’s Ramada hotel Wednesday for what is intended to be a show of support for scholarly independence on matters pertaining to religious thought, “without addressing the book’s content.”

Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger has also opined that police shouldn’t have summoned the rabbis over their haskama, which should be safeguarded as freedom of speech is for academics.

“If a rabbi is requested to give his blessing to a book that is halachic, and does so, he shouldn’t be investigated for it,” he told Israel Radio on Monday. “Israeli professors go abroad and criticize Israel, and the IDF is protected by freedom of speech, so why shouldn’t rabbis have that indemnity?” Metzger noted that the police should instead have approached the chief rabbis to “learn what a letter of blessing, or endorsement to a book, actually means in our generation.


(Source)
​

And most recently, this issue reared its ugly head again..

The police have issued an arrest warrant for Dov Lior, the head rabbi of Kiryat Arba and a senior figure in religious Zionism. The warrant follows the rabbi's refusal to appear for questioning on the support he gave for the controversial book "Torat Hamelech," which justifies killing non-Jews.


The commander of the Hebron police visited Lior's home several days ago and informed him that there was an arrest warrant against him. The rabbi told the officer that he will not take part in the dishonoring of the Torah and that he would not show up for questioning by the police, which he claimed was aimed at "silencing rabbis."

---------------------------------

People close to Lior expressed outrage at the arrest warrant.

"The state prosecution and police have the audacity to issue an arrest warrant for a great Torah figure," one person said. "The purpose of the questioning, like that of dozens of rabbis in recent months, is to silence them. Whoever closes the cases against the heads of the Arab community who call for the destruction of the State of Israel or leftist professors in academia who call for harming IDF soldiers should think twice before issuing an arrest warrant against Rabbi Lior."

Sources close to the rabbi said that "he is adamant about not appearing at the questioning on his own accord in order to put an end to the persecution of the Torah and bolster other rabbis."

MK Michael Ben-Ari (Habayit Hayehudi ) also backed the rabbi, calling the warrant "a travesty."

"This is a regime of fear and one wonders where have all the left wingers gone, who just a few days ago spoke of being silenced," he said. "The issuance of an arrest warrant against a great Torah figure of such magnitude, when all this is about is the backing he gave to a book, is a crossing of a red line, McCarthyism ... Would they have behaved this way against an academic of the left?"


(Source)
​

It should be noted that academics do not travel overseas and tell others when it is acceptable to kill Jews.. I am still amazed that the commander of the Police in Hebron did not arrest him when he "visited" him to tell him there was a warrant out for his arrest..

Most disturbing however:

A poll conducted by Ynet and the Yesodot Center for Torah and Democracy reveals that 58% of haredim and the religious public believe that rabbis should not be subjected to police interrogation. The majority of seculars and traditionalists, however believe that rabbis should report for questioning when called.

-----------------------------

Participants were asked whether rabbis who have been summoned for police questioning due to their support or involvement in the writing of the book "Torat Hamelech" condoning the murder of non-Jews should report for interrogation.

-----------------------------

Analysis according to religious affiliation shows that 83% of haredim and 52% of the religious public believe that the rabbis should refuse questioning, while 84% of seculars and 71% of traditionalists submit rabbis have an obligation to report for interrogation.


(Source)
​

It should be noted that one of the authors of the book had previously been accused of being involved in the torching and vandalising of a Mosque in a nearby Palestinian village..


Now, based on this saga, would it be acceptable to say that this is "ingrained in the thinking of the dispensatory caste of religious thinkers" of Judaism? I would not. This is religious bigotry to the very core.. These Rabbis released a book detailing and virtually encouraging the killing of non-Jews who may hate Jews, to the point of killing babies and children, in case they grow up to hate Jews.. It is a clear permission of violence against the other based solely on religion. And it is a clear distinction of 'us vs them'.. Which the whole notion of "unclean" stems from, for example.

Do you think all Jews buy into killing babies because they may grow up to want to kill Jews in the future? I do not. But you are saying that we should somehow apply different rules to Islam.. That while the majority in other religions do not buy into the murderous inclination of the few and should thus, not be charged as being so, Muslims should be because it "ingrained in the thinking of the dispensatory caste of religious thinkers of Islam"..

 

[GeoffP]

Thanks

It exists in many religions. It exists in your religion as well.. Sinners cannot take communion for example, without confession.. ie. they are deemed unclean.

Actually, the definition of people of other religion as filthy based on their religion does not exist in mine, so far as I am aware; nor, moreover, would I have any moral or religious standing for refusing to touch something that came from their hands. You will find this behaviour elsewhere if you look long enough, of course, but it does not appear to be a tenet of my faith as regards the commonplace. For example: when I go to a mosque, I must take off my shoes. Women may or may not be segregated to a different prayer area. But these are facts of the expression of their faith, within their own faith lives: I might well deplore the segregation of women, but I am not under any constraint to do so.

Now, in the case before us, the woman in question was considered too filthy for the other women of the village to want to take water from her bucket - not, as we discussed before, as an issue of hygiene, but because she, herself, as a consequence of her faith, was considered naij. This occurred, moreover, not as a consequence of worship in a mosque or as an article of faith, but rather in the common experience, in free public life. This is putting religious preference into the common stream, wherein it becomes a form of bigotry, since there is no possible logical humanitarian benefit that could reasonably be cited, and especially not given the parameters of the case. In this case, those presumably drawing opinion from Islamic thought (or theology) on this matter are attempting to delimit the actions of others; and then, when Ms. Bibi responded in kind, the force of Islamic law for others was imposed upon her. It would be as if I happened upon you in the street, refused to take something from you on account of your being too filthy to touch me, and then had you arrested for insulting Jesus. A double whammy. Now, some Jewish and Christian sects also do this, but they do not have the recourse to call the police when I insult their beards, hair and root. And this is the problem with the failure of separation between mosque and state in Islamic nations.

It is ingrained in most religions.

Not just Islam.

?? Who said "just"?

I'll give you an example.

Hmm: I'm not sure that it's ingrained to the same level - for one thing, the guy publishing that is an ultra-fundamentalist, and you'll note that the secularist state did in fact arrest him. Those protesting the arrest seem also to have been fundamentalists. Further, the state didn't arrest them for anti-Jewish propaganda, but for hatred against non-Jews, which was not the state of Ms. Bibi's case. The same doesn't seem to be true of religiously-oriented laws in Islamic nations; there it is the apostate, not the extremist, who seems in the most legal jeopardy.

It should be noted that academics do not travel overseas and tell others when it is acceptable to kill Jews..

Actually, the above were rabbis, rather than academics: and at least one academic (Mohamed Elsmasry, a professor from the University of Waterloo) has made quite an explicit statement about when it is acceptable to kill Jews.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=12573ab0-13ce-48c4-9e8e-5765b1a654d9

It's occurred elsewhere, of course - leaders, religious types, others:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...charged-over-kill-the-jews-speech-661453.html

And it's not an uncommon meme:

http://www.examiner.com/american-po...-support-killing-for-islam-40-want-sharia-law

- letting alone Hamas TV and the like.

Most disturbing however:

A poll conducted by Ynet and the Yesodot Center for Torah and Democracy reveals that 58% of haredim and the religious public believe that rabbis should not be subjected to police interrogation. The majority of seculars and traditionalists, however believe that rabbis should report for questioning when called. ​

True. Keep in mind, however, that 75% of the country are secular or traditionalist:

The religious affiliation of Israeli Jews varies widely: A Social Survey for those over the age of 20 indicates that 55% say they are "traditional," while 20% consider themselves "secular Jews," 17% define themselves as "Religious Zionists"; 8% define themselves as "Haredi Jews."[369] Only 5% of Israel's population in 1990,[370] the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, are expected to represent more than one-fifth of Israel's Jewish population in 2028[371]

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

The poll numbers in your citation also show only about a 16% support for the refusal of the rabbis to report for questioning; centered, as in Islamic circles, in the extremists. Higher than here, I dare say, but probably lower than elsewhere. This relates to one of the other differences in the example above is the mode of expression: the Rabbis above are members of the religious intelligentsia, such institutions in all the three Abrahamic religions do require investigation and reform, but it is only in Islamic systems that there exists such a strong refutation of the separation of mosque and state. For example: in Ms. Bibi's case, it was the law itself that was considered to have been broken by her counter-insults to her neighbors. I wonder if it was law that she was excluded from the well; this is another of the problems of a religiously-dependent legal system.

It should be noted that one of the authors of the book had previously been accused of being involved in the torching and vandalising of a Mosque in a nearby Palestinian village..

Correct: so not your average Joseph off the street.

Now, based on this saga, would it be acceptable to say that this is "ingrained in the thinking of the dispensatory caste of religious thinkers" of Judaism? I would not. This is religious bigotry to the very core..

Yes; but it should also be kept in mind that religious fundamentalism is far more common in Islamic nations than in Israel, for example, or here. The recent poll of Egyptians was a sobering reminder of this. Actually it's difficult to say whether this strong trend of conservancy derives more from the state - which serves in protection of Islam as a state religion - or the religious apparatus, which seems to function in tandem with the state in enforcement, promulgation and punishment. That either is so involved is not a good thing. Israel is hardly secular, but it doesn't seem so far gone as that.

But you are saying that we should somehow apply different rules to Islam..

Of course not. In fact, I am saying that the violations of what we consider humanitarian precepts are more common in Islamic nations, and under Islamic-dependent law. I wish you would be a little more precise in your use of language, above (bolded).​

 

[Bells]

Okay Geoff.

But now I want you to consider my earlier post and apply it with this:

A Haifa University survey investigating Arabs and Jews' views on one another reveals disturbing results.

The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.


On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean.


Over a third of the Jewish students taking part in the survey confirmed that they are afraid of Arabs.

----------------------------------------

Kupermintz further stated that the survey was conducted in October 2004, and that if it was to be held today, he believes the results would be much more extreme.

(Source)
​

Welcome to the future..

In response to the question of whether Arab citizens should be granted rights equal to that of Jews, 49.5 percent answered in the negative. The issue highlighted the deep fault lines separating religious and secular youths, with 82 percent of religious students saying they opposed equal rights for Arabs while just 39 percent of secular students echoed that sentiment.

The secular-religious gap was also present when students were faced with the question of whether Arabs should be eligible to run for office in the Knesset. While 82 percent of those with religious tendencies answered in the negative, 47 percent of secular teens agreed. In total, 56 percent said Arabs should be denied this right altogether.

The survey also delved into the issue of military service and following orders that are deemed politically divisive.

While an overwhelming majority (91 percent) expressed a desire to enlist in the Israel Defense Forces, 48 percent said they would not obey an order to evacuate outposts and settlements in the West Bank.

Here, too, researchers note the religious nexus. Of those who would refuse evacuation orders, 81 percent categorize themselves as religious as opposed to 36 percent who are secular.



(Source)
​

My point was in any country where religion is the basis of a law, you will find such issues. Religion in general creates an 'us vs them' attitude. Others on the outside are unclean, or unsaved, or sinners.. I see that in my own family.


Look at your own religion Geoff.. The baptism to the funeral.. If you are deemed unclean or the sinner, you won't even get a funeral. That kind of bigotry exists constantly.. But it is bigotry that has the attention focused on Islam instead of looking at the problem broadly (ie. addressing it in all religious circles)..

That is what I meant.

 

[quadraphonics]

Would you say one is a Bigot because He does not think anyone can do whatever they want. You will usualy find People who Cry Bigot actualy follow a set of Man made laws. is one a Bigot for following the Law of the land. Or would one be a Bigot because he does not agree witht he law of the land and he agrees with maybe a scripture law. one of God.

It's really not that fucking complicated:

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders, or religion."

 

[quadraphonics]

My point was in any country where religion is the basis of a law, you will find such issues.

I'd suggest that it's the intersection of religion and nationality, rather than religion and state, that is salient here. I.e., those surveys you cite show Israelis willing to defy the lawful orders of a (ostensibly religious) state out of a sense of national duty, no?

But I'd also suggest that religion may not be the most relevant aspect, there. Let's bear in mind that being Jew is both an ethnic and a religious proposition - and that the cited survey is phrased explicitly in terms of how Israelis view "Arabs," and not how they view "Muslims." In that sense, it is a survey of explicitly ethnic attitudes. So this could be as much a matter of ethnic nationalism, as religious nationalism. Not that the two are particularly separable in this context, but the point is that a narrow focus on religious aspects seems stilted.

Religion in general creates an 'us vs them' attitude. Others on the outside are unclean, or unsaved, or sinners..

Indeed. Likewise nationalism, ethnocentricism, nativism, etc. No shortage of identity politics on display, here.

 

[GeoffP]

Okay Geoff.

But now I want you to consider my earlier post and apply it with this:

That's terrible. It's not on par with the kind of legalized religious discrimination you'll see elsewhere in the Middle East, though: one can immediately point to the armed hostilities going back the last sixty years as a fountain to draw bigotry from. But in comparison, in an Islamic state, what have the minorities (non-Muslim and Muslim) really done to deserve their treatment? There are no rockets being lobbed, no revolutions in progress, no terrorism, with the exception perhaps of Baluchistan, Kurdistan and a couple other places. I wouldn't want to see the Israel model followed anywhere - as it, too, is somewhat religious in character - but I don't think it can be argued that the present correlation between religion and politics is not worse domestically in, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and so on. Moreover, it's widespread.

My point was in any country where religion is the basis of a law, you will find such issues. Religion in general creates an 'us vs them' attitude. Others on the outside are unclean, or unsaved, or sinners.. I see that in my own family.

I agree: but that separation is quantitatively more minimal in an Islamic nation.

Look at your own religion Geoff.. The baptism to the funeral.. If you are deemed unclean or the sinner, you won't even get a funeral. That kind of bigotry exists constantly.. But it is bigotry that has the attention focused on Islam instead of looking at the problem broadly (ie. addressing it in all religious circles)..

That is what I meant.

I appreciate your comments, but I reiterate that while the immediate above is regrettable and possibly unjustifiable, it's a standard of the observance of faith. It's unlikely that I'd be legally chastised for apostacy via the auspices of Catholicism: jail, fines, death, and so on. It is more likely in an Islamic state. You might again draw broadly the kind of social angst that all religion generates: but, still, if I don't like Catholicism, I can leave without legal repercussion. Nor is my faith able to dictate the mores or behavior of 'unbelievers' on the basis of religious charter. The same is not true in an Islamic state, and it is this kind of Orwellian inclusion that is particularly problematic.

 

[James R]

GeoffP and Bells:

You appear to be carrying on a conversation from another thread that was previously closed. Why?

 

[Bells]

GeoffP and Bells:

You appear to be carrying on a conversation from another thread that was previously closed. Why?

Because it is a discussion on the ethics of religious bigotry and whether it should exist in society and whether particular religions should be singled out.

I believe it should not. I think religious bigotry should be off the table.

Why do you ask James?

 

[Bells]

I'd suggest that it's the intersection of religion and nationality, rather than religion and state, that is salient here. I.e., those surveys you cite show Israelis willing to defy the lawful orders of a (ostensibly religious) state out of a sense of national duty, no?

More out of a religious duty.

The issue there is that Rabbis do not believe they should be arrested or charged for their interpretation of the Torah. In that the Torah is above the law and however they interpret it should remain above the law. Therefore a senior Rabbi endorsing when it is acceptable to kill gentiles out of his beliefs of the religious text is immediately above the law. Those who support them believe that religious duty should come above the law and national duty.

But what was most interesting was a very senior police officer went to his house and advised him there was a warrant out for his arrest.. but did not arrest him. The article did not delve into it, but there seems to be a fear of going against the religious rules or defying the religious elite.

The book itself is awful as it is unacceptable. But senior Rabbis as well as some others high up in the political arena endorsed it. When you couple that with what human rights organisations in Israel are reporting - the way that the law is applied favours Jews over non Jews - it is quite disturbing.

But I'd also suggest that religion may not be the most relevant aspect, there. Let's bear in mind that being Jew is both an ethnic and a religious proposition - and that the cited survey is phrased explicitly in terms of how Israelis view "Arabs," and not how they view "Muslims." In that sense, it is a survey of explicitly ethnic attitudes. So this could be as much a matter of ethnic nationalism, as religious nationalism. Not that the two are particularly separable in this context, but the point is that a narrow focus on religious aspects seems stilted.

But when you look at it from their standpoint, Arabs are mostly non Jews or that is how they are defined.

Indeed. Likewise nationalism, ethnocentricism, nativism, etc. No shortage of identity politics on display, here.

There never is.

That's terrible. It's not on par with the kind of legalized religious discrimination you'll see elsewhere in the Middle East, though: one can immediately point to the armed hostilities going back the last sixty years as a fountain to draw bigotry from. But in comparison, in an Islamic state, what have the minorities (non-Muslim and Muslim) really done to deserve their treatment? There are no rockets being lobbed, no revolutions in progress, no terrorism, with the exception perhaps of Baluchistan, Kurdistan and a couple other places. I wouldn't want to see the Israel model followed anywhere - as it, too, is somewhat religious in character - but I don't think it can be argued that the present correlation between religion and politics is not worse domestically in, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and so on. Moreover, it's widespread.

Ah the but..

And in some parts of Africa, the LRA wish to impose laws based solely off the 10 commandments and kill accordingly..

The point, Geoff, is that where any law is based on religion, discrimination is sure to follow. The Israel model is not unique, but it is defended and rarely denounced by the West. Other models which are very similar and the treatment is virtually the same is denounced and not defended by the West.. It is political as it is ethnocentric. They are in with 'us' against the 'them'.. If you know what I mean..

You ask what minorities have done to deserve their treatment. I say nothing.

But I'd like to ask you what do you think the minorities on this forum have done to deserve their treatment? Why are Muslims on this forum being held to a higher standard? Why are they expected to denounce and condemn things that they personally had nothing to do with? Why are they then abused or ridiculed if they do not? Why are they expected to explain things and then be abused for what they say?

Michael asks if religious bigotry is off the table.. I want to know why he wants it on the table. Why do you think religious bigotry should be on the table at all?

I agree: but that separation is quantitatively more minimal in an Islamic nation.

No it actually isn't.

Have a Muslim say that Judaism is backwards in Israel and see how far he gets before he is arrested and charged.

To give you a prime example, you can be arrested for questioning the Holocaust.

But one thing I find interesting is Fiedler's comments about this story in the NCR:

When we hear about laws and events like these, we are –- rightfully -– horrified. And some unknowing people, bent on spreading Islamophobia, use them to brand Islam as a violent, intolerant religion.

That’s why Interfaith Voices digs deeper, with a look at the history of blasphemy laws. Before Islam even existed, they were part of both Judaism and Christianity.

Typical punishments for blasphemy included stoning, burning, or even branding. And it was Great Britain that “exported” many of these laws to its former colonies, like Pakistan.

(Source)
​

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

I appreciate your comments, but I reiterate that while the immediate above is regrettable and possibly unjustifiable, it's a standard of the observance of faith. It's unlikely that I'd be legally chastised for apostacy via the auspices of Catholicism: jail, fines, death, and so on.

Depends on where you go.

Ireland, for example, have fairly strict anti-blasphemy laws.. And yes, you could theoretically be arrested and/or jailed.

It is more likely in an Islamic state.

Not really.

Many countries have blasphemy laws..

But Islamic States are more media worthy now, so we see more of them than anyone or anything else. In short, we are buying into the stereotype.

You might again draw broadly the kind of social angst that all religion generates: but, still, if I don't like Catholicism, I can leave without legal repercussion.

While they cannot arrest you if you leave, they can make life difficult for you - treatment in Catholic run hospitals may be refused, your children may be forced to not attend the local private Catholic run schools for example.

If you live in a solid Catholic community, they can ostracise you. They can deny you and your family the right to burial in the future..

If you wish to adopt a child, since they handle so many adoptions now, they can prevent you from that as well.

While they cannot throw you in jail for leaving, the laws support their right to discriminate against you because you left.

Nor is my faith able to dictate the mores or behavior of 'unbelievers' on the basis of religious charter. The same is not true in an Islamic state, and it is this kind of Orwellian inclusion that is particularly problematic.

Considering how many Muslims there are in the world, if all acted as you claim their religion demands they act towards unbelievers, we would not be here.. So obviously, the greater majority of Muslims do not allow their faith to dictate how unbelievers are to be treated according to their religious charter. And that is something that isn't considered in these discussions.

We are looking at the distinct minority and applying to the greater majority. And it should not.

 

[James R]

Because it is a discussion on the ethics of religious bigotry and whether it should exist in society and whether particular religions should be singled out.

I believe it should not. I think religious bigotry should be off the table.

Why do you ask James?

I ask because you were very keen that the previous thread, including your discussions with GeoffP on exactly the same topic, be closed.

 

[Bells]

I ask because you were very keen that the previous thread, including your discussions with GeoffP on exactly the same topic, be closed.

Yes. I advocated closing the other thread because of its intent and because of the breaches of the rules that occured there, particularly in the first pages where the denigration and bashing of a whole group was allowed to continue for so long without sanction. Which I made quite clear in the thread discussing it. Which is why I asked for a review and for the whole thread by senior moderators/administrators, remember?

This thread, as you are aware, discusses whether religious bigotry should be on the table or off.. While it is connected to the other thread, it also has other implications and is quite different..

What do you think James? Do you think religious bigotry should remain off the table? Or should it be acceptable? Or do you think it should be acceptable when discussing Islam? As you are well aware by now, I think it is totally unacceptable and I also feel that we, as a community, should not focus on just one and blame all the ills on that one while protecting the others from similar sanction. Should members complain because they cannot discriminate against a particular group? These are all questions that should be addressed. And that is what I am discussing with Geoff.

Yes, Geoff and I can discuss things without insult. Strange concept, I know.